preparing to 4.5.19 release

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:03:14PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger already submitted a fix for this issue, I'm going to check
> > it on x86 and x86-64, and merge it if everything is OK.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > Another small issue is file timestamps in release tarball.
> > Since git does not store timestamps, all files will have current mtime
> > after checkout, while we still package files with last modification in
> > previous century (e.g. PORTING).
> 
> I honestly just don't see any problem there.  Nobody cares what the
> timestamps are, as long as configure is newer than configure.ac and that
> sort of thing

Yes, there are no problem, at least for those who just build strace from
tarball.  But there are people who still list tarball contents before use.
Maybe it's some kind of a taste, but for me it would be a bit more fair if
each file timestamp in tarball would correspond to the last file change.


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20091009/2869c4a5/attachment.bin>