| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:45 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Real examples would be issues like bugs 83877 [1] or 263387 [2]. |
| 5 |
>> Nothing that could be easily dismissed or worked around. Both issues |
| 6 |
>> are fixed with Portage since a long time. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Yes, those are examples of packages relying upon something that is |
| 9 |
> undefined behaviour, and that behaves differently depending upon the |
| 10 |
> Portage version you use. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> I don't know of any example where non-preservation of nanosecond |
| 13 |
>> timestamps would cause problems. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Not non-preservation. Partial and inconsistent corruption. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Wouldn't "loss of precision" be a more accurate description? Of the |
| 18 |
known packages which require timestamp preservation, do any of them |
| 19 |
use sub-second precision in their timestamp comparisons? |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Zac |
Archives