| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:24:05 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > What I want is for the proposal to be sufficiently specific that it |
| 4 |
> > covers exactly what the package manager can and cannot do, and what |
| 5 |
> > ebuilds can and cannot rely upon happening. If you require mtime |
| 6 |
> > preservation between pkg_preinst and the merge to /, the package |
| 7 |
> > manager can just screw things up (by implementing reasonable |
| 8 |
> > features) elsewhere. It is by no means clear to me that merely |
| 9 |
> > requiring mtime preservation from after pkg_preinst to before |
| 10 |
> > pkg_postinst, and allowing arbitrary mtime tinkering elsewhere, is |
| 11 |
> > what is desired. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Can you try to find a suitable wording? Otherwise, it's not clear to |
| 14 |
> me how the council could resolve the issue during the next meeting. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I've been thinking about this, and I honestly don't think it's |
| 17 |
achievable without losing at least one of the aims. So far as I can |
| 18 |
see, the Council's goals are mutually contradictory on this one. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives