| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Now we need to enumerate the exceptions: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> ,---- |
| 6 |
>> | * files newly created by the package manager, |
| 7 |
>> `---- |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> ,---- |
| 10 |
>> | * binary object files being stripped of symbols. |
| 11 |
>> `---- |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Anything else missing from above list? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> man pages, info pages, things covered by ecompress, arbitrary |
| 16 |
> documentation, |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Last time I checked, mtimes of all of these were preserved. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> any source code file, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Do you mean sources installed with FEATURES="installsources"? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I honestly don't think we should be going anywhere with this until |
| 25 |
> Portage is using a mechanism that guarantees correct sub-second |
| 26 |
> resolution preservation in all cases. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I disagree. Sub-second resolution is currently a non-issue, and I'm |
| 29 |
not aware of any problems caused by it (or its absence). And it's not |
| 30 |
even supported by all filesystems. (Is it supported by tar? That might |
| 31 |
also be an interesting question with respect to binpkgs.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It's much better to have a spec that requires second resolution *now*, |
| 34 |
instead of not preserving mtimes at all (as Paludis current does). |
| 35 |
There's always the possibility to refine the spec later, in case any |
| 36 |
issues with missing sub-second resolution should arise. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Ulrich |
Archives