Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:54:48
Message-Id: 4AF268A3.5070107@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 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?
Ah, I guess you're right. The documentation led me to believe that os.utime would provide nanosecond-resolution on platforms that support it, but a simple test case seems to indicate that it does not. -- Thanks, Zac

Attachments

File name MIME type
utime_test.py text/x-python

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>