On Aug 13 22:20, Christian Franke wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Aug 8 12:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >>Hi Christian, > >> > >>On Aug 7 22:15, Christian Franke wrote: > >>>Attached is an experimental patch which adds -m, --check-mtimes[=SECONDS] > >>>option to cygcheck. It provides an IMO useful heuristics to find files > >>>possibly modified after installation. > >>> > >>>"cygcheck -c -m" prints the number of files with st_mtime > > >>>INSTALL_TIME+SECONDS. INSTALL_TIME is the st_mtime of the > >>>/etc/setup/PACKAGE.lst.gz file. > >>> > >>>With -v, the affected path names are printed. The optional parameter > >>>SECONDS > >>>defaults to 600 to hide files modified by postinstall scripts. > >>That's an interesting idea. I just gave it a try. I think this might > >>be useful, > >On second thought, the modification date isn't very meaningful all by > >itself, is it? In theory it's only meaningful if the file has changed > >as well. > > That's why I called it "heuristics" :-) > > > > Consider, what is the user supposed to do with the information > >that the file modification date has changed? Where does the user go > >from there? > > The info is IMO useful to find changed config files, forgotten hot fixed > scripts or other files you possibly want to save before a package is > updated. > > It also sometimes exposes package collisions (e.g. libgnutls26/28 provide > different versions of cyggnutls-openssl-27.dll or libsasl2/2_3 provide > different version of /usr/sbin/saslauthd). > > > >So I'm wondering if the st_mtime check isn't just a starting > >point for a test for a file change. OTOH, we have a problem there. > >The rudimentary package database in /etc/setup is not very helpful. > >It only contains filenames, but no other information on the files. > > > >What would be really cool: Setup generates the package info files in > >/etc/setup with additional file size and md5 (sha1, sha256, you name it) > >checksum. Then cygcheck could test if st_mtime, st_size and the > >checksum match. Or, in a first step, just store and check the file > >size. > > Yes, this is an obvious missing feature of the Cygwin package management. I > didn't suggest it because my open source spare time is too limited to > implement it :-)
That's unfortunate. But, anyway, what about the other points I raised in my first reply? We could improve the -m handling as we go along. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
pgprwslKynfX_.pgp
Description: PGP signature