1 |
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:24:05 +0100 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > What I want is for the proposal to be sufficiently specific that it |
4 |
> > covers exactly what the package manager can and cannot do, and what |
5 |
> > ebuilds can and cannot rely upon happening. If you require mtime |
6 |
> > preservation between pkg_preinst and the merge to /, the package |
7 |
> > manager can just screw things up (by implementing reasonable |
8 |
> > features) elsewhere. It is by no means clear to me that merely |
9 |
> > requiring mtime preservation from after pkg_preinst to before |
10 |
> > pkg_postinst, and allowing arbitrary mtime tinkering elsewhere, is |
11 |
> > what is desired. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Can you try to find a suitable wording? Otherwise, it's not clear to |
14 |
> me how the council could resolve the issue during the next meeting. |
15 |
|
16 |
I've been thinking about this, and I honestly don't think it's |
17 |
achievable without losing at least one of the aims. So far as I can |
18 |
see, the Council's goals are mutually contradictory on this one. |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |