Message-Id: <199806240053.BAA14989@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
From: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 01:49:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [fdonahoe AT wilkes1 DOT wilkes DOT edu: Patch Level in /v2gnu]
Reply-to: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Precedence: bulk

On 23 Jun 98 at 14:01, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Size and date aren't helpful, apparently, or else we wouldn't be
> > having this dicussion.
> 
> Most ftp programs don't preserve the date for downloaded files. A
> ``dir'' (or a Browser's directory listing) still shows the date on
> the host.

In any case, the date stamp on the downloaded file is always in the
present or the past.  Why can't people just look at the date stamps
in 00_index.txt to decide whether or not the archive has been
updated since they downloaded something?  If we can't even rely on
the date stamp of the downloaded file being in the past, then DJ's
manifest/package.txt system would contain the most recent
modification date anyway.

This relies on 00_index.txt being completely up-to-date at all times, 
though.
-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk