From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3RJeT85012028 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:40:30 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-198.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.198] helo=exodus) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DQsOj-0001kQ-HK for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:40:37 +0000 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:41:14 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] why do different ebuilds have the same version number? Message-ID: <20050427194113.GN29554@exodus.wit.org> References: <20050427130938.GG20252@ulric.rafique.org> <1114624384.32128.232858999@webmail.messagingengine.com> <426FE55A.7060404@pnpitalia.it> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <426FE55A.7060404@pnpitalia.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f588c237-2663-4f65-8d16-bb3f96dc7ddc X-Archives-Hash: 50ab60ae9f779fed5d2c51a65ef8292a 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" > > 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list