Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:55:52 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: rebase keeps last modification time of DLL unchanged
Message-ID: <20120309195552.GA1632@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4F57DC0F DOT 2090401 AT t-online DOT de> <20120308093206 DOT GR5159 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4F5918A2 DOT 4090707 AT t-online DOT de> <20120309084307 DOT GA5159 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20120309154754 DOT GB31291 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4F5A4A5F DOT 7090207 AT t-online DOT de> <20120309194733 DOT GA18960 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120309194733.GA18960@calimero.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:47:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar  9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>On Mar  8 21:37, Christian Franke wrote:
>> >>>rebase does not explicitly (re)set the timestamp after rebasing. Is
>> >>>this by design?
>> >>>
>> >>Well, let me put it like this.  Rebase just does its job.  It doesn't
>> >>actually care for the file timestamp, only for the file header
>> >>timestamps.  This is not by design, it's just as it is.  So the next
>> >>question is obvious.  Do you think it should change the timestamp or
>> >>not?  Why?  A patch is simple and I have it actually already waiting in
>> >>the scenery.
>> 
>> Both have it its pros and cons, so it depends on user's preferences:
>> Preserve st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups are not polluted with unnecessary DLL copies
>> after rebaseall is run.
>> 
>> Update st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups provide an accurate copy (including
>> /etc/rebase.db.i386 which matches DLL states)
>> 
>> 
>> >I don't think the default should change but maybe an option could be
>> >added for people who want to see updated times.
>> 
>> Agree.
>
>I'm not so sure this option would make a lot of sense.  An option not
>used by rebaseall by default won't be used anyway.  We should decide
>which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.

Why couldn't it be an option for rebaseall?

Frankly, I don't really want to see the modification time of all of my
dlls change when I run rebaseall.  I'd rather have the date match what's
in the package.  But, I can see why somebody might not want that
behavior.

cgf

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