Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for the meeting of December 7th, 2009
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:06:04
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for the meeting of December 7th, 2009 by David Leverton
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, David Leverton wrote:
> The intention is to make the spec for a new EAPI unnecessarily > complex, just to avoid changing an existing implementation?
The spec first proposed was along the lines "mtime is updated if (and only if) the package manager modifies the file" [1], but the Paludis party raised objections that this was not specific enough. But see below about "common sense".
>> We should also consider including this in EAPI 0 retroactively
> Doing things like that defeats the purpose of EAPI.
Normally I would agree with this. However, in this particular case the damage has already been done. We wouldn't break anything by applying this retroactively. The breakage of packages will go away in the moment when all package managers preserve mtimes, independent of what we write into the spec. So we could as well keep it simple (i.e. without distinction between EAPIs).
> People are expected to use common-sense when reading it (since we > don't have enough man-power to make it completely airtight), [...]
I fully agree. If such wisdom had been used earlier, the whole issue would long be off the stove. Ulrich [1] <>


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for the meeting of December 7th, 2009 David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com>