From: | Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> | ||
---|---|---|---|
To: | Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> | ||
Cc: | gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> | ||
Subject: | Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 | ||
Date: | Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:20:41 | ||
Message-Id: | 19151.46897.919575.802605@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de | ||
In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 by Luca Barbato |
1 | >>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote: |
2 | |
3 | > I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. |
4 | |
5 | Quoting Zac from <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c31>: |
6 | | For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes. |
7 | | If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's |
8 | | taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary |
9 | | potential source of conflict. |
10 | |
11 | Ulrich |
Subject | Author |
---|---|
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 | Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |