| 1 |
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:14:27 -0800 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on |
| 4 |
> nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS |
| 5 |
> out 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 |
We aren't discussing requiring nanosecond resolution. We're discussing |
| 10 |
not getting corrupted timestamps, which is what happens. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If you're building on a filesystem which does support nanosecond |
| 13 |
resolution timestamps, Portage will screw up the *second* part of the |
| 14 |
timestamp as well as the nanosecond part. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives