1 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:03:20 +0100 |
2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Find below a proposed agenda for our next meeting. |
4 |
|
5 |
Could you add in something like: |
6 |
|
7 |
"Agree upon a wording for PMS for the mtime modification change |
8 |
introduced to EAPI 3 last time" |
9 |
|
10 |
please? Due to insufficient clarity in the proposal, the PMS team hasn't |
11 |
been able to come up with a wording that wouldn't either require |
12 |
changes to Portage (which appears to be against the Council's intent) |
13 |
or that would permit behaviour currently seen as undesirable. As I |
14 |
understand it, the issues are: |
15 |
|
16 |
* What's to be done about sub-second timestamps? What about cases where |
17 |
the build filesystem supports them but the root filesystem doesn't? |
18 |
|
19 |
* For which files must mtimes be preserved, and which can be modified? |
20 |
|
21 |
* Is it the intent of this proposal to prevent package managers from |
22 |
automatically rewriting, say, #!/usr/bin/python to |
23 |
#!/opt/gentoo/bin/python if prefix is being used? |
24 |
|
25 |
Or, a solution before the meeting would be fine too. It's just I don't |
26 |
think this is something the PMS team is able to resolve on its own. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |