1 |
On Thursday 26 November 2009 13:21:43 Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
> It was always on the todo to convert portage over to preserving mtime- |
3 |
> this long predates PMS and even EAPI. |
4 |
|
5 |
Like, for example, use deps? Yet somehow we managed to introduce those in a |
6 |
new EAPI, instead of retroactively adding them to all EAPIs. Why should |
7 |
mtimes be different? |
8 |
|
9 |
> Beyond that, I presume your intention is to stir things up |
10 |
|
11 |
I suppose you have the right to presume whatever you want. |
12 |
|
13 |
> It's a bit ironic really. Y'all didn't want mtime in there so it was |
14 |
> left unspecified. Now you're complaining that portage changed it's |
15 |
> behaviour (2+ years after the fact) as an arguement against adding |
16 |
> mtime preservation into the next eapi. |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm certainly not arguing against adding it, I just want it to be done |
19 |
properly, and I'm expressing distaste at people trying to blame Paludis for |
20 |
the fact that it's not as easy as some people want it to be. |
21 |
|
22 |
> I mean paludis doesn't preserve mtimes. People aren't going out of |
23 |
> their way to break paludis (and claiming so is just trolling). |
24 |
|
25 |
I don't think anyone's talking about changing packages purely for the sake of |
26 |
break Paludis and for no other reason, but people have been talking about |
27 |
making changes that they know will break Paludis. (Whether they've actually |
28 |
done so is a different question, but the talk, and people blaming Paludis |
29 |
both when it behaves differently from Portage and when we've taken care to |
30 |
make it behave the same as Portage only for Portage to randomly change, are |
31 |
quite irritating.) |
32 |
|
33 |
> Just because portage did something for a few years, does not make it |
34 |
> right (this is something the PMS folk have been claiming since day |
35 |
> one). So... that arguement is invalidated by your own statements. |
36 |
|
37 |
PMS tries to document Portage behaviour as long as it's not clearly |
38 |
unreasonable and unspecifiable. Discarding mtimes is suboptimal behaviour, |
39 |
yes, but it's coherent enough that it can't be considered a blatent bug. |
40 |
Much like the lack of use deps in older EAPIs. |