| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:26:59PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on |
| 4 |
> > nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out |
| 5 |
> > there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can |
| 6 |
> > pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require |
| 7 |
> > nanosecond resolution for installation. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Your "guarantee" is filesystem-specific. However, if we can |
| 10 |
> establish that all known packages with timestamp preservation |
| 11 |
> requirements do their timestamp comparisons with 1-second |
| 12 |
> granularity, then we'll have a much safer (filesystem-independent) |
| 13 |
> assumption. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I've no complaints with mandating that ebuilds can rely on second |
| 16 |
level resolution- it's a valid gurantee as far as I'm concerned. |
| 17 |
Further any fs that can't offer it involves the user doing something |
| 18 |
seriously wonky, thus their problem if the ebuild horks. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If/when the major filesystems out there all do NS level resolution, |
| 21 |
and are in common deployment, I'd have no arguement extending the |
| 22 |
spec to mandating NS level resolution. I've serious problems w/ |
| 23 |
mandating NS resolution in PMS prior to that however. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
~harring |
Archives