From: Peter Hanecak (hanecak@megaloman.com)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 11:18:48 EST
On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> half, there is a check on the HTML page timestamp and the RPM timestamp
> done to avoid this except in --force
>
> > So it would be fine to:
> > a) package is new? inspect it and make some note somewhere that we alredy
>
> Ho do you know it's new ?
no note in "notes".
> > At the end, it will also benefit actual .html output because
> > "Last-changed" header wont be changing everytime rpm2html is running. So
> > caches and proxies will be happy ... :)
>
> Also handled if the html or rdf output is the same as the current page
> it is not saved, keeping the timestamp and saving the caches.
...
> Just focuse on the rpmio/signature stuff since it seems you missed a few
> things :-)
It can be truth with probability closely approaching certainity. :)
So, now it looks to me like this:
a) comparing HTML page timestamp and the RPM timestamp is good because it
happens BEFORE any closer inspection of package. So isn't it also solution
for avoiding big averhead "signature resolving" introduces?
b) comparing html or rdf output and current page is useless because it
happens AFTER closer inspection of package ("signature resolving" is
alredy done).
Is (A) correct?
Peter
-- =================================================================== Peter Hanecak <hanecak@megaloman.com> GPG pub.key: http://www.megaloman.com/gpg/hanecak-megaloman.txt ===================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 10 2001 - 18:40:13 EDT