| 1 |
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:26:59 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
>> This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on |
| 5 |
>> nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out |
| 6 |
>> there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can |
| 7 |
>> pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require |
| 8 |
>> nanosecond resolution for installation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Your "guarantee" is filesystem-specific. However, if we can establish |
| 11 |
> that all known packages with timestamp preservation requirements do |
| 12 |
> their timestamp comparisons with 1-second granularity, then we'll have a |
| 13 |
> much safer (filesystem-independent) assumption. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Thanks. That's basically what I'm wondering also, well, if they do it |
| 16 |
with one second granularity, or if it's possible to make them do it that |
| 17 |
with with a simple command-line sed, adding an option, but here it's |
| 18 |
stated in different (fewer) words. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives