Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:04:11
Message-Id: 4ACFB302.80708@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 by Ulrich Mueller
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri R├Ąty wrote: > >> 3. Preservation of file modification times >> - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release >> - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus >> among PM developers on how to best approach this > > Actually, my request was more explicit: > > If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it > should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]: > > A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved > B: optional update of "old" mtimes > C: mandatory update > > Could you add this to the agenda please?
I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Replies