1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> |
4 |
> Neither of those are what Portage currently does. It is my |
5 |
> understanding that the Council doesn't want to require any changes to |
6 |
> Portage behaviour for this. |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
Ideally we would get by without changes to Portage but the goal isn't |
10 |
avoiding to change Portage but to make sure the packages that require |
11 |
certain behavior for mtimes work if it requires changes to Portage in |
12 |
order to work then so be it. They are not likely to be huge so they can |
13 |
be done for EAPI 3 or if they are just postpone this to EAPI 4 like I |
14 |
suggested in the first place. |
15 |
|
16 |
Regards, |
17 |
Petteri |