On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 09:17:46PM +0200, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> 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, but that turned out to be a very bad determiniation of when an
> >ebuild has changed. Then I thought revision numbers, but that's
> >innacurate too. Basically now it comes down to looking at the current
> >ebuild in portage and comparing it to the last time I looked at it.
> >It's much more expensive, because you have to look at *every* ebuild,
> >not just "ebuilds changed since x date/time" or "ebuilds newer than
> >version y". Oh no, now I sound like I'm ranting ;-)
> >
> >-m
> >
> >
> Why you could not use ctime/mtime ? Isn't possible to make a check like
> you do now but only on a filtered by "mtime" list of ebuild ?
> A command like this
> # find . -name "*.ebuild" -and -mtime "-7" -or -ctime "-7"
Actually... nope. :)
You're forgetting about eclass changes, which can adjust metadata
(deps) of an ebuild w/out the ebuild ever being modified...
~brian
--
[email protected] mailing list
