On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:48:27 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System) wrote:
> This bug report suggests going to too great lengths to preserve time > stamps. Debian policy has the following to say: > > Maintainers should preserve the modification times of the > upstream source files in a package, as far as is reasonably possible. > > This formulation was, IIRC, chosen because we want packages to > preserve timestamps of files, where possible, but not go to absurd > lengths to do so. Therefore, debhelper is careful to preserve > timestamps while installing dcumentation and other files, by using cp > -a and install -p. > > Going any further, by trying to somehow preserve timestamps of files > created by the Debian diff just violates the KISS principle. Trying > to make compiled files have the same source timestamp as the source > file goes a step further and is just wrong. Your opinion might be correct; if so it deserves better support. These phrases say the same thing: "too great lengths", "reasonably possible", "absurd lengths", "KISS (=Keep It Simple Stupid)", "just wrong". All beg the question[1] of whether using an ad-hoc util to correct spurious dates or timestamps is worthwhile. In the meantime I'd gladly reopen this bug, but fear of the wrath of Joey! Perhaps if the official methods are lacking, unofficial methods can be arrived at elsewhere. For the record, a few notes on simplicity and logical circularity: Supposing a problem is complex or simple. If the problem is complex, then it might necessarily require a complex solution, and cherished 'KISS' principles don't apply. If the problem is simple, the solution might be complex even so, as with various mathematical chestnuts. In either case, a solution should be as simple as possible, and that's the best we can do. Is the solution offered for backdating unchanged doc files truly complex? I'm not sure, to me it seems too obvious to be called that. Is it the simplest possible way? Maybe not, there might be some better way. Note that a top-down universal util that tries to fix all instances of incorrect doc dates isn't the idea. There are probably more strange cases and exceptions than one method can handle. But a small util that reliably fixed a subset of the problem would be progress. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html (better {borrowed} examples) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
