| 1 |
Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> 3. Preservation of file modification times |
| 5 |
>> - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release |
| 6 |
>> - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus |
| 7 |
>> among PM developers on how to best approach this |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Actually, my request was more explicit: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it |
| 12 |
> should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved |
| 15 |
> B: optional update of "old" mtimes |
| 16 |
> C: mandatory update |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Could you add this to the agenda please? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
lu |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Luca Barbato |
| 27 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 28 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 29 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
Archives