From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 03 17:45:39 2017 Received: (at 26734) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2017 21:45:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53278 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d625b-0006AX-L3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:39 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:44901) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d625Z-0006AK-V9 for 26734@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:38 -0400 Received: from pool-72-93-31-169.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.31.169] helo=jojen) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d625U-0003AV-0K; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:32 -0400 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@lassieur.org> <87h913h0rj.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1brmm8m.fsf@lassieur.org> <87fugmxqng.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fugmxqng.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 03 May 2017 10:58:59 +0200") Message-ID: <87r305iphr.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 26734 Cc: 26734@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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. Mark