[mirror-admin] A question about timestamp issues.

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:19:34AM +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Axel Thimm<Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:20:48PM +0530, susmit shannigrahi wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I was just curious to know this.
> >>
> >> If I copy Fedora repo carelessly and
> >> change the timestamps of the rpm packages as well as of the metadata,
> >> what are the _exact_ problem that will happen?
> >
> > That depends on the rsync switches you use.
> 
> 
> Sorry I messed up. I meant :
> 
> what are the _exact_ problems that would happen with yum or
> packagekit, that is, at the client side?

I *think* that yum detects "newer" packages with the same nevra and
upgrades to them - at least I've seen that behaviour when I
accidentially forgot to bump a package's release and so the resulting
package had the same nevra but a newer timestamp.

If the timestamp falls back to the past I guess yum will not touch the
package.

Why are you asking? Does that have to do with the some weeks old
timestamp issue on the masters? That should had been leveled out
everywhere by now.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/mirror-admin/attachments/20090814/f540ca99/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
--