Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for the meeting of December 7th, 2009

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Denis Dupeyron wrote:

> 4. GLEPs 58, 59, 60 and 61 (15 minutes)
>   Read more about this as well as a nice summary at [3]. Vote for or
>   against each of these 4 GLEPs. If voting against please suggest
>   improvements and/or alternatives.

Shouldn't GLEP 57 be included in this list (although it's only
informational)?

> 5. mtime preservation (15 minutes)
>   Three alternatives have been proposed:
>   5.1. The package manager must preserve modification times of regular files.
>        This includes files being compressed before merging. Exceptions to this
>        are:
>         - Files newly created by the package manager
>         - Binary object files being stripped of symbols
>         - Maybe others

In case we accept 5.1., I suggest that we delegate it to the Portage
team to produce a list (which can also be empty) of the "maybe others"
files.

>        Depending on the exact wording and exceptions this can be
>        made equivalent to 5.3 below.

Right, that's the intention of it.

We should also consider including this in EAPI 0 retroactively, as
suggested by Zac in [1]. Look at the following sequence of events:

  2007-07-28  Portage 2.1.3 is released, preserving mtimes when
              merging (if release candidates are counted, then the
              date is even earlier [2]).

  2008-05-08  PMS allows that file modification times are discarded. [3]

>   Note that none of these propositions have a solution for subsecond
>   resolution requirements. But note also that no package could be
>   identified as having such requirement yet. Do we care?

I don't.

Ulrich

[1] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_daf1b54f428f6a07cff96aedc9693b78.xml>
[2] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83877#c37>
[3] <http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=commit;h=de6ee9c6ad50d4d130e9ad02f31bddced15293f4>