Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:06:42
Message-Id: 20091103180632.0eb8e26c@snowcone
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09 by Ulrich Mueller
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:03:20 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> Find below a proposed agenda for our next meeting.
Could you add in something like: "Agree upon a wording for PMS for the mtime modification change introduced to EAPI 3 last time" please? Due to insufficient clarity in the proposal, the PMS team hasn't been able to come up with a wording that wouldn't either require changes to Portage (which appears to be against the Council's intent) or that would permit behaviour currently seen as undesirable. As I understand it, the issues are: * What's to be done about sub-second timestamps? What about cases where the build filesystem supports them but the root filesystem doesn't? * For which files must mtimes be preserved, and which can be modified? * Is it the intent of this proposal to prevent package managers from automatically rewriting, say, #!/usr/bin/python to #!/opt/gentoo/bin/python if prefix is being used? Or, a solution before the meeting would be fine too. It's just I don't think this is something the PMS team is able to resolve on its own. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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

Replies