On 4/26/06, A. Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:10:23 -0600 > "Shaun Jackman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The bug probably shouldn't be closed. I would tag it wontfix, and post > > it on debian-devel for discussion. > > I'm with you for reopening and reclassifying, but I don't mix well with > '-devel', so far anyway. Irreconcilable humor differences, maybe.
Hold off on the debhelper bug for now, perhaps. The dpkg-source utility from the dpkg-dev package seems like a better place to start. > > That dpkg-source doesn't preserve > > time stamps is a straight-forward bug. > > Has it been reported already? Not yet. > > Likewise for the Debian diff. All the Debian packaging, > > including documentation, is packaged in the diff, and by default, > > debuild does not preserve the time stamp meta-data in the diff. I > > don't know why this is though, because diff does, by default, preserve > > the time stamp meta-data. > > A question... my typo fixes all use '.diff' files. I used to use the > default 'diff' format which looked like this: ... > ...then as per the useful critique of C. Wilson, I started using the '-u' > switch: ... > Now it looks like the latter 'diff -u' keeps a time stamp, while the > former (default) 'diff' does not. But you're saying that the default > of 'diff' does preserve time stamps. Seems like a mix-up. Debian uses (and most of the open-source world) uses unified (-u) diffs. I meant diff -u includes the time stamp information by default. > Either way though, I'd agree that it would be useful for our purposes to > have time stamps in patches, unless there are compelling though seldom > heard reasons not to. I would be interested to hear any argument against including the time stamp information in the .diff.gz. Cheers, Shaun
