From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NDhIJ-0007nS-0w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:34:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAAB9E0882; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f187.google.com (mail-yw0-f187.google.com [209.85.211.187]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84517E0882 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh17 with SMTP id 17so825157ywh.2 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rugrCNEekIEb5TxpoYACQwLvbsqro2BVALYIiZ6oD5Q=; b=XRuy4UR9XXfE9wbt8GJon3Joe6LMS2eeZgS4PVbvCBVR46JnvBnKV3SMmRieT0Epws w9s5cKPc76rL6pHnqvsptuhr6OFiZEBlUihWsVw3UluP8q9EWwjkVrBUfhaDZeSVYJnV Xlgx6SVfYW0wVYZO4ZEpJ33aHtBkIg4e3GAD8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=cb7jCkRQZiPzOqISCJWryHuJrQuDpJLaIdMemFVpYva0tpPPwunPP4M+f50G7GdRH7 1m+v5XQAK5TY6/RXnDbUXMSPWi/4V8gfa7gn0kIbEDeFJLbyjMEkMUs4W8rmfsgsMcvO V9ekZOOIkZTqhC01qcIgaQVha6IxtRTkAPD0s= Received: by 10.100.243.32 with SMTP id q32mr6265867anh.189.1259253187764; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-98-210-130-131.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.130.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm394152yxf.65.2009.11.26.08.33.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:03 -0800 Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:33:03 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Next council meeting on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC Message-ID: <20091126163302.GD6082@hrair> References: <7c612fc60911251350k3560b7d7sf4e9c867a30b0d90@mail.gmail.com> <20091126013438.GF23443@hrair> <20091126153117.7c8dd725@snowcone> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="veXX9dWIonWZEC6h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091126153117.7c8dd725@snowcone> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 64677e4b-1d07-4382-97a4-db11869762d0 X-Archives-Hash: 0674ff269c819365cc1a9674234b1d79 --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:31:17PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:34:38 -0800 > Brian Harring wrote: > > I'd like=20 > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449= 553.xml > > to be discussed, specifically zacs form of forced mtime updating of=20 > > /var/db/pkg on vdb modifications >=20 > I've still not had an answer to: >=20 > "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=20 interesting phrasing. That said, "no" comes to mind, since the=20 requirement you set is daft. The timestamp updating is for whenever the vdb content (addition of a=20 pkg, pkgmoves being applied, removal of a pkg, modification of=20 metadata, etc) is changed. That's all that timestamp is for. Vdb=20 content. In light of what the timestamp is, your demand for proof is pretty off=20 the mark. If you still consider it to be a valid question, please=20 rephrase it and clarify why exactly proof must be provided that people=20 reading that timestamp (which is for vdb content only) will only be=20 using that timestamp for vdb content. Your request is akin to demanding proof that a hammer only be used as=20 a hammer. It's a fricking hammer- it has one use, one way of being=20 used. If someone goes out of their way to be an idiot, they're an=20 idiot, not the specs problem. Seriously, if you're actually worrying about some specific usage case,=20 state it- on the face of it, your request for proof right now makes=20 zero sense. Kindly provide a scenario or elucidation. ~harring --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksOrb4ACgkQsiLx3HvNzgdchwCgs9SRMXFtXBXZAk2uRQye3GWj rY4AoL41R9u5uhSsxjGZqOFdGHnCzIqJ =h1YP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --veXX9dWIonWZEC6h--