This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: rebase keeps last modification time of DLL unchanged
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:47:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>On Mar 8 21:37, Christian Franke wrote:
>> >>>rebase does not explicitly (re)set the timestamp after rebasing. Is
>> >>>this by design?
>> >>>
>> >>Well, let me put it like this. Rebase just does its job. It doesn't
>> >>actually care for the file timestamp, only for the file header
>> >>timestamps. This is not by design, it's just as it is. So the next
>> >>question is obvious. Do you think it should change the timestamp or
>> >>not? Why? A patch is simple and I have it actually already waiting in
>> >>the scenery.
>>
>> Both have it its pros and cons, so it depends on user's preferences:
>> Preserve st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups are not polluted with unnecessary DLL copies
>> after rebaseall is run.
>>
>> Update st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups provide an accurate copy (including
>> /etc/rebase.db.i386 which matches DLL states)
>>
>>
>> >I don't think the default should change but maybe an option could be
>> >added for people who want to see updated times.
>>
>> Agree.
>
>I'm not so sure this option would make a lot of sense. An option not
>used by rebaseall by default won't be used anyway. We should decide
>which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.
Why couldn't it be an option for rebaseall?
Frankly, I don't really want to see the modification time of all of my
dlls change when I run rebaseall. I'd rather have the date match what's
in the package. But, I can see why somebody might not want that
behavior.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple