Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> 
> Neither of those are what Portage currently does. It is my
> understanding that the Council doesn't want to require any changes to
> Portage behaviour for this.
> 

Ideally we would get by without changes to Portage but the goal isn't
avoiding to change Portage but to make sure the packages that require
certain behavior for mtimes work if it requires changes to Portage in
order to work then so be it. They are not likely to be huge so they can
be done for EAPI 3 or if they are just postpone this to EAPI 4 like I
suggested in the first place.

Regards,
Petteri