On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 01:00:11PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 04:46:43PM -0500, Francis Giraldeau wrote: > > Le 2013-12-06 01:48, Kari Pahula a écrit : > > > None of that code has yet made its way to mandb. > > > > It's a good start, let's try make it ready. > > For what it's worth, I'm actually slightly less interested in the patch > cleanup. What I'm more interested in, and the reason I hadn't just gone > ahead and dealt with Kari's patch directly (sorry for not explaining > this!) is a more detailed analysis of Kari's comment in the bug report: > "there's something off with the code and it gives false positives on > differing mtimes". What exactly is going on here? > > I would really be more comfortable continuing to use mtimes if possible; > it is the more appropriate stat field to use, as it describes changes to > the file's contents rather than its metadata. Using ctimes seems to me > to be a mistake.
Kari, would you mind giving current git master a try (see http://man-db.nongnu.org/development.html)? I've made some substantial changes recently which are relevant to all this, in particular switching everything over to use high-precision timestamps. The database format version changes as a result so I'd suggest running this only on test copies of your manual databases, not on /usr/share/man etc. directly, as it will be incompatible with your system's man-db programs. I'm hoping that the general cleanup here will have made your original bug go away. If not, I'm still interested in a more detailed analysis of exactly what is going wrong here. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [[email protected]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
