| 1 |
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 00:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Quoting Zac from <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c31>: |
| 7 |
> | For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes. |
| 8 |
> | If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's |
| 9 |
> | taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary |
| 10 |
> | potential source of conflict. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Ulrich |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Luca's and Zac's comments work for me. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force in a |
| 17 |
change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given syntax for |
| 18 |
VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't really want to |
| 19 |
open that can of worms. |
Archives