Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

[Petteri Räty]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> I am aware of the fact that we are late for EAPI 3 (partly because I
> didn't expect that the change would require an EAPI bump). Question to
> the council: is it still possible to include this? Considering that
> there is a lot of breakage, as well as strange workarounds related to
> the current inconsistent behaviour of package managers.
>

For most features the block is the need for Portage to implement the
feature. If I read the thread correctly, Portage already implements what
is wanted here so it's just a matter of agreeing on the specification. I
don't see any reason not to have something in EAPI 3 if it's specified
and implemented in the same time frame as the main driving features of
EAPI 3.

Regards,
Petteri