1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:12:37 -0800 |
3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems, |
5 |
>>> Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and |
6 |
>>> sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp |
7 |
>>> preservation where possible will need Portage changes. |
8 |
>> I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least |
9 |
>> python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Mm, I can't see the code for that. So far as I can see, for the |
12 |
> non-fast case you're using stat.st_mtime and os.utime, which assuming |
13 |
> they correspond to the POSIX things of the same name, are |
14 |
> second-resolution. What am I missing? |
15 |
|
16 |
Ah, I guess you're right. The documentation led me to believe that |
17 |
os.utime would provide nanosecond-resolution on platforms that |
18 |
support it, but a simple test case seems to indicate that it does not. |
19 |
-- |
20 |
Thanks, |
21 |
Zac |