1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, David Leverton wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> The intention is to make the spec for a new EAPI unnecessarily |
4 |
> complex, just to avoid changing an existing implementation? |
5 |
|
6 |
The spec first proposed was along the lines "mtime is updated if |
7 |
(and only if) the package manager modifies the file" [1], but the |
8 |
Paludis party raised objections that this was not specific enough. |
9 |
But see below about "common sense". |
10 |
|
11 |
>> We should also consider including this in EAPI 0 retroactively |
12 |
|
13 |
> Doing things like that defeats the purpose of EAPI. |
14 |
|
15 |
Normally I would agree with this. However, in this particular case the |
16 |
damage has already been done. We wouldn't break anything by applying |
17 |
this retroactively. The breakage of packages will go away in the |
18 |
moment when all package managers preserve mtimes, independent of what |
19 |
we write into the spec. So we could as well keep it simple (i.e. |
20 |
without distinction between EAPIs). |
21 |
|
22 |
> People are expected to use common-sense when reading it (since we |
23 |
> don't have enough man-power to make it completely airtight), [...] |
24 |
|
25 |
I fully agree. If such wisdom had been used earlier, the whole issue |
26 |
would long be off the stove. |
27 |
|
28 |
Ulrich |
29 |
|
30 |
[1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c41> |