| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:34:21PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > That's not a "massive change" to vdb behaviour either; file |
| 5 |
> > collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is |
| 6 |
> > basically guranteed back to a single package. Throw in |
| 7 |
> > CONFIG_PROTECT for adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more |
| 8 |
> > preferable norm than "lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the |
| 9 |
> > fs". |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It is a massive change, since if the feature is there then people don't |
| 12 |
> feel bad about writing lousy pkg_ functions that leave a load |
| 13 |
> of .pyc / .pyo files all over the place. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Quoting the good spec: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
"The unmerge process removes an installed package's files. It is not |
| 18 |
covered in detail in this specification." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get |
| 21 |
wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on |
| 22 |
it and be compliant. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Background as to why we ever relied on mtime- it was a hack to work |
| 25 |
around a bad implementation in portage (treewalk function); it didn't |
| 26 |
actually know if it was replacing or what not, so mtime was what was |
| 27 |
relied on- afaik, that being the sole reason we shoved mtime into |
| 28 |
the vdb also. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
At least from the portage standpoint, shifting away from mtime |
| 31 |
reliance was on the radar since '05 and implemented at least |
| 32 |
initially by '06... exact date it was released from a stable branch I |
| 33 |
couldn't tell you, but it's been there a long while. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
~brian |
Archives