>>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> EAPI 3 is reopened for the purpose of including one sole feature,
>> namely preservation of file modification times, as outlined in
>> bug 264130, option B of comment 26 . Both Portage and Pkgcore
>> already comply with this, so it would be zero implementation cost.
> 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. 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.
But if you want, the council can also vote if it should be option
A (current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved),
B (optional update of "old" mtimes), or C (mandatory update).
@betelgeuse: Could you please add this to the agenda, too?
> 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.