1 |
Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> 3. Preservation of file modification times |
5 |
>> - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release |
6 |
>> - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus |
7 |
>> among PM developers on how to best approach this |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Actually, my request was more explicit: |
10 |
> |
11 |
> If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it |
12 |
> should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved |
15 |
> B: optional update of "old" mtimes |
16 |
> C: mandatory update |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Could you add this to the agenda please? |
19 |
|
20 |
I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. |
21 |
|
22 |
lu |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
|
26 |
Luca Barbato |
27 |
Gentoo Council Member |
28 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
29 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |