X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 21:09:41 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: rebase keeps last modification time of DLL unchanged
Message-ID: <20120309200941.GD18960@calimero.vinschen.de>
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> <20120309195552 DOT GA1632 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120309195552.GA1632@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT 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

On Mar  9 14:55, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:47:33PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar  9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote:
> >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >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.

Yeah, that's the other point.

> But, I can see why somebody might not want that behavior.

But even if we add an option, what's the more useful default?  The
average use will not use the option, so the default setting should
be what makes most sense and is least surprising.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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