Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Cc: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:54:20
Message-Id: 1255197258.5783.8.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 by Ulrich Mueller
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 00:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. > > Quoting Zac from <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c31>: > | For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes. > | If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's > | taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary > | potential source of conflict. > > Ulrich
Luca's and Zac's comments work for me. Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force in a change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given syntax for VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't really want to open that can of worms.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>