(CC'ing upstream for both datefudge and libfaketime)
This is in reference to my proposal to package libfaketime for debian,
found here:
http://bugs.debian.org/495630
On Tue 2008-08-19 03:27:47 -0400, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> How does this differ from datefudge?
On Tue 2008-08-19 05:41:31 -0400, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> There is already another package in Debian that provides similar
> functionality: datefudge. Perhaps you can get both upstreams to
> merge there efforts?
Ah, i'd missed datefudge. Thanks for pointing it out, Peter and Guus.
Actually, datefudge will do what i need for my purposes, so i'm going
to back off from this ITP for now.
The packages are slightly different, though:
libfaketime appears to be capable of intercepting stat() calls while
datefudge is not.
And libfaketime is capable of setting absolute times (i.e. making the
wall clock appear completely stopped for the client).
datefudge appears to use what libfaketime calls "start at" dates:
[0 dkg@squeak ~]$ datefudge '2001-01-01' sh -c 'date && sleep 10 && date'
Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2001
Mon Jan 1 00:00:10 EST 2001
[0 dkg@squeak ~]$
And can't "stop the clock" the way that libfaketime can:
[0 dkg@squeak ~]$ LD_PRELOAD=src/libfaketime/libfaketime-0.7/libfaketime.so.1 FAKETIME='2001-01-01 00:00:00' sh -c 'date && sleep 10 && date'
Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2001
Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 EST 2001
[0 dkg@squeak ~]$
(libfaketime is capable of *not* stopping the clock as well, of
course)
OTOH, datefudge has much more flexible time specification syntax,
which is nice, and it already has the command-line utility that i was
considering hacking together.
Both tools seem to be GPL-2 or later, so i see no reason why upstream
couldn't join forces if they wanted to. Wolfgang? Matthias? Do you
guys have any preferences for how to proceed? What do you think of
Guus' suggestion?
Regards,
--dkg
Attachment:
pgpFgEpJkvml8.pgp
Description: PGP signature