Re: [gentoo-dev] Next council meeting on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:31:17PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:34:38 -0800
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like 
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449553.xml
> > to be discussed, specifically zacs form of forced mtime updating of 
> > /var/db/pkg on vdb modifications
> 
> I've still not had an answer to:
> 
> "Provide proof that all existing and future caches that would rely upon
> this validation mechanism are functions purely and exclusively
> dependent upon the VDB content, and I shall be happy to make the
> change."

First I've seen this question actually or at least this particular 
interesting phrasing.  That said, "no" comes to mind, since the 
requirement you set is daft.

The timestamp updating is for whenever the vdb content (addition of a 
pkg, pkgmoves being applied, removal of a pkg, modification of 
metadata, etc) is changed.  That's all that timestamp is for.  Vdb 
content.

In light of what the timestamp is, your demand for proof is pretty off 
the mark.  If you still consider it to be a valid question, please 
rephrase it and clarify why exactly proof must be provided that people 
reading that timestamp (which is for vdb content only) will only be 
using that timestamp for vdb content.

Your request is akin to demanding proof that a hammer only be used as 
a hammer.  It's a fricking hammer- it has one use, one way of being 
used.  If someone goes out of their way to be an idiot, they're an 
idiot, not the specs problem.

Seriously, if you're actually worrying about some specific usage case, 
state it- on the face of it, your request for proof right now makes 
zero sense.  Kindly provide a scenario or elucidation.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]