Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] mtime preservation
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:00:55
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] mtime preservation by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Now we need to enumerate the exceptions: >> >> ,---- >> | * files newly created by the package manager, >> `----
>> ,---- >> | * binary object files being stripped of symbols. >> `---- >> >> Anything else missing from above list?
> man pages, info pages, things covered by ecompress, arbitrary > documentation,
Last time I checked, mtimes of all of these were preserved.
> any source code file,
Do you mean sources installed with FEATURES="installsources"?
> I honestly don't think we should be going anywhere with this until > Portage is using a mechanism that guarantees correct sub-second > resolution preservation in all cases.
I disagree. Sub-second resolution is currently a non-issue, and I'm not aware of any problems caused by it (or its absence). And it's not even supported by all filesystems. (Is it supported by tar? That might also be an interesting question with respect to binpkgs.) It's much better to have a spec that requires second resolution *now*, instead of not preserving mtimes at all (as Paludis current does). There's always the possibility to refine the spec later, in case any issues with missing sub-second resolution should arise. Ulrich