2009/8/26 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Magnus Therning<magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Jan de Groot<jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 10:40 +0200, Gerhard Brauer wrote: >>>> Am Mittwoch, den 26.08.2009, 09:56 +0200 schrieb Jan de Groot: >>>> >>>> > As Arch is a rolling release system, we decided to remove the file. But >>>> > as tools use this file to identify Arch systems, we decided to keep the >>>> > file, but make it empty. >>>> > >>>> > 2009.08 won't be 2009.08 as soon as you run pacman -Syu ;) >>>> >>>> To far this we could maybe add a function to pacman, so that after every >>>> -Syu the unixtime gets written to this file. >>>> This would give us: >>>> * IMHO the highest version/release number a software/distribution ever >>>> have. >>>> * The individual content of this file then represent the nature of a >>>> rolling release. >>>> >>>> Ok, just kidding ;-) >>> >>> And within 28 years it will overflow so we have a negative version >>> number :P >> >> Of course the correct way of solving that would be to define an epoch >> for Arch, e.g. starting when Arch was first announced. Then we'd have >> to define a tick to be the time between package uploads to the master >> repo. (Correct counting of ticks can of course only happen from now >> on, but we still have to estimate the number of ticks since epoch to >> now, if for nothing else then for our sanity.) Then we modify the >> mirroring so that it is guaranteed to always hand out packages from >> the same tick (the current tick is established at start of download). >> Then Pacman must be modified to pick out the repos mentioned in >> /etc/pacman.conf mirroring the latest tick and only use those for the >> operation, it must of course also make sure that the mirror's tick is >> later than the system's. >> >> That sounds like a plan... oh, no, I forgot, this is Arch and not Debian ;-) > > Let's just put "1.0" in the file :) > > /me remembers the "Arch isn't stable, it's not even 1.0 yet!" > arguments from the past > What about putting date when pacman -Syu was run for a last time in that file? It would still suffer from lag when using mirrors but I guess it should be accurate enough. Lukas
