X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <45A159B7.4070606@t-online.de>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:36:07 +0100
From: Christian Franke <Christian DOT Franke AT t-online DOT de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.7) Gecko/20060910 SeaMonkey/1.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygport patch: Add PATCHOPTS
References: <459D64FE DOT 1060006 AT t-online DOT de> <45A0BB07 DOT 8090803 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <45A0BB07.8090803@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ID: V+C2s6ZVweKYGpoebV8qn8aUZo+XRmNgvHCby8s++yzAhqJZPyMI09
X-TOI-MSGID: a37b5063-cba2-4ce9-8a01-098c34f8b983
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> ...
> This is not necessary with cygport because the autotools are always
> regenerated, and not changes in the generated files are not included in
> the patch.
>
> Did you find this particularly necessary somehow, and why?
>
>   

I prefer to have the original timestamps of the files preserved by 
"cygport ... prep".
This should not rely on the source of the file (.tar or .patch).

Not really necessary, it is more a "nice to have" feature ;-)

BTW: Is the -N patch option always appropriate?

Christian


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/