On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 03:31:17PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:34:38 -0800 > Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449553.xml > > to be discussed, specifically zacs form of forced mtime updating of > > /var/db/pkg on vdb modifications > > I've still not had an answer to: > > "Provide proof that all existing and future caches that would rely upon > this validation mechanism are functions purely and exclusively > dependent upon the VDB content, and I shall be happy to make the > change."
First I've seen this question actually or at least this particular interesting phrasing. That said, "no" comes to mind, since the requirement you set is daft. The timestamp updating is for whenever the vdb content (addition of a pkg, pkgmoves being applied, removal of a pkg, modification of metadata, etc) is changed. That's all that timestamp is for. Vdb content. In light of what the timestamp is, your demand for proof is pretty off the mark. If you still consider it to be a valid question, please rephrase it and clarify why exactly proof must be provided that people reading that timestamp (which is for vdb content only) will only be using that timestamp for vdb content. Your request is akin to demanding proof that a hammer only be used as a hammer. It's a fricking hammer- it has one use, one way of being used. If someone goes out of their way to be an idiot, they're an idiot, not the specs problem. Seriously, if you're actually worrying about some specific usage case, state it- on the face of it, your request for proof right now makes zero sense. Kindly provide a scenario or elucidation. ~harring
pgpLDUFFcYk7T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
