Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:29:30
Message-Id: 20091104212919.4fe37274@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation by Zac Medico
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:12:37 -0800
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> > So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems, > > Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and > > sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp > > preservation where possible will need Portage changes. > > I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least > python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support.
Mm, I can't see the code for that. So far as I can see, for the non-fast case you're using stat.st_mtime and os.utime, which assuming they correspond to the POSIX things of the same name, are second-resolution. What am I missing? -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>