List Archive: gentoo-council
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 00:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
Luca's and Zac's comments work for me.
Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force in a
change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given syntax for
VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't really want to
open that can of worms.