Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:20:41
Message-Id: 19151.46897.919575.802605@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 by Luca Barbato
>>>>> 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

Replies