On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:53:04AM -0700, marduk wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:09:38 -0700, "Imran Sher Rafique"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I hope this doesn't come across as too much of a rant.
> >
> > Summary
> > -------
> > Is it accepted practice to allow for changes in an ebuild without
> > changing the
> > ebuild version number?
>
> Unfortunately yes ;-). This also has been a problem for
> packages.gentoo.org code, because I basically have to make a series of
> assumptions as to when an ebuild is considered "new" or "updated".
> Originally I thought I could just just look at the timestamps on the
> ebuilds,
Relying on mtime of an ebuild and it's eclass should suffice.
Any changes that don't affect any of those timestamps portage won't
handle properly from the cache perspective...
~brian
--
[email protected] mailing list
