Re: [Gnu-arch-users] library inode signature detection

[Robert Collins]

On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 09:12, Tom Lord wrote:

>     > Tom, is ctime needed in the inode signature at all? I'd have though
>     > mtime was the key for detecting alterations.
> 
> 
> Hmm.   ctime is not, strictly speaking, necessary -- as far as I can
> tell at a quick glance.

Same conclusion I came to. 

> However, I'd like to keep it.   It isn't currently used as a signature
> that means "this file has/hasn't changed at all, in any respecct" --
> it's only used as "the _contents_ of this file might have changed."
> But the former is a clearer semantic, I think.   So, leave ctime.

Well, I've put in the integration queue a patch that removes ctime and
checks the library signatures. I'll leave it there for now - I hope to
change your mind on this.

> I would say the problem is really that libraries are built with
> `build_link_tree'.  It would be saner to build a link tree _only_ to
> source files.

Hmm? I'm not clear on this. Are you suggesting a non hard link method
for revision libraries - no space sharing at all?

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part