Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:12:37 -0800
> Zac Medico <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems,
>>> Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and
>>> sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp
>>> preservation where possible will need Portage changes.
>> I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least
>> python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support.
> Mm, I can't see the code for that. So far as I can see, for the
> non-fast case you're using stat.st_mtime and os.utime, which assuming
> they correspond to the POSIX things of the same name, are
> second-resolution. What am I missing?
Ah, I guess you're right. The documentation led me to believe that
os.utime would provide nanosecond-resolution on platforms that
support it, but a simple test case seems to indicate that it does not.