On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:13:53PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
On Jan 8, 2008 1:48 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathan Jones wrote:
Looks like it doesn't work :) The problem seems to be that pkg->date is never set anywhere (this is actually the only function that references it). I think changing it to pkg->builddate will work.
int _alpm_pkg_istoonew(pmpkg_t *pkg) { time_t t;
ALPM_LOG_FUNC;
if (!handle->upgradedelay) return 0; time(&t); return((pkg->date + handle->upgradedelay)> t); }
That's a funny feature indeed. People who always complain about stability could get upgrades always a few days later so that other people test them first :)
Indeed, pkg->date isn't set and used anywhere. It could probably be removed. builddate is set, but it isn't in the sync db, so it wouldn't work either. But the only way for this feature to work would be to add the builddate to the db, right?
Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure build date is the correct value. Shouldn't it rather be the date when the package is moved to the stable repos rather? (I'm thinking about packages that stay a period in testing first, and never the same delay). But more generally, just the date when the package is added to the repo would do.
This seems like a feature introduced to solve a problem the wrong way. If people didn't release broken packages, this really wouldn't be necessary.
Any reason not to just kill it completely?
-Dan
If I recall correctly it came into being after I talked with Judd or Aaron... I didn't think it was really necessary, but it was a stop gap between having a stable/better tested repo and what we had before Aaron came in with the testing policy (which hasn't been a silver bullet). I think it's probably too late to weigh in on whether it should stay or not, but this is where it came from. I'm nothing if not a living history of Arch Linux development ;) Jason