| 1 |
Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1- All packages are treated equally. Some files have their mtime |
| 3 |
> preserved, some don't. We need to agree on what files have their mtime |
| 4 |
> preserved and at what phase the mtime is frozen. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I'd vote for method 1. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> My intention is to ask the council to vote on which method is |
| 9 |
> preferable in two weeks. I will also ask the council on whether we |
| 10 |
> still want mtime preservation for EAPI3 or if we now think it's better |
| 11 |
> to push it to EAPI4. Please discuss. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You can probably do method 1 retroactively for all EAPIs, since the |
| 14 |
few existing packages which require mtime preservation are |
| 15 |
presumably broken already anyway (any damage is already done), and |
| 16 |
packages which don't require mtime preservation are not hurt by it. |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Thanks, |
| 19 |
Zac |
Archives