From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 00:01:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87r305ppla.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@lassieur.org> <87h913h0rj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1brmm8m.fsf@lassieur.org> <87fugmxqng.fsf@gnu.org> <87r305iphr.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45900) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d62LV-00020A-Ni for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:02:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d62LS-0006Mh-LJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:02:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55101) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d62LS-0006MX-HO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:02:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d62LS-0006Z3-7n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:02:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87r305iphr.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:20 -0400") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 26734@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> BTW, what timestamps to we put on the modified files? We want that to >> be deterministic so we cannot use the build time. We cannot use a date >> in the future, either. We cannot use Jan. 1 1970 either because that >> means that modified files may now be older than the unmodified files, >> which may break build systems; for the same reason, we cannot leave the >> mtime of modified files unchanged. >> >> Now that I think about it, it=E2=80=99s not clear to me what can be done= without >> breaking something. >> >> Thoughts? > > We could set the timestamp of modified files to be 1 second newer than > the newest file in the original source archive. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.