On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Dieter Baron wrote:

> : DATE (using "+%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S %z")
> 
>   Well, I see you went ahead and called it DATE despite my objection.
> 
>   I still think DATE is a bad name, since it does not say *which* date
> is meant.  It could mean the date of the CVS checkout, the last date
> any package file was changed, the date the package was built.  It is
> the last, which is why I suggested BUILD_DATE.

Sorry. I still don't see nor understand that myself. The way it is now it 
is the timestamp when the +BUILD_INFO file is created (which is good 
enough for me) near the end of the install phase. And that may be 
different time/date than when the package was built or packaged. When I 
see a vague "date" for this I'd just assume this was the "date" for this 
package.

Feel free to change it.

Also we could have it set the _THE_DATE (rename that also) during the 
correct phase only.

    Jeremy C. Reed
                        ``Of course it runs NetBSD.''
                            http://www.NetBSD.org/