Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-council
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: Agenda for October meeting
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:59:24 +0100
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:49:43 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> > Why go with an inferior solution? Why not go with a solution that
> > requires the package manager to fix broken mtimes?
> Because it would be non-zero implementation cost for Portage, so
> probably out of question for EAPI 3.

It's cheap, and it's doing it the right way. If we were to design the
feature up-front rather than going with whatever Portage does, we'd go
with mtime fixing.

> And it's not at all clear if the solution is inferior. Since half a
> year, nobody cared to answer the question of comment 25 of mentioned
> bug.

Because comment 25 is entirely missing the point. The objection is not
to preservation. The objection is to pure preservation with no handling
for dodgy mtimes.

> > Also, what are the rules regarding this and things like stripping
> > and other fixes and changes that the package manager performs upon
> > files before merging them?
> This is outside the scope of this proposal, and (at least for now) I'm
> not going to work anything out.

It's not. It's a necessary part of the proposal. You need to define the
behaviour here, since if you don't, we're back to ebuilds relying upon
undefined behaviour.

What you're effectively saying by ignoring this is "mtimes must be
preserved, except when they're not". That isn't good enough, since it
would be entirely legal for a package manager to not do any
preservation at all then. Alternatively, you're saying "mtimes must
always be preserved", in which case Portage isn't compliant. This isn't
something you can just ignore.

Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Agenda for October meeting
-- Petteri R├Ąty
Re: Agenda for October meeting
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: Agenda for October meeting
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: Agenda for October meeting
-- Ulrich Mueller
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Agenda for October meeting
Next by thread:
(no subject)
Previous by date:
Re: Agenda for October meeting
Next by date:
(no subject)

Updated Jul 26, 2010

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-council mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.