Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:03:20 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> Find below a proposed agenda for our next meeting.

Could you add in something like:

"Agree upon a wording for PMS for the mtime modification change
introduced to EAPI 3 last time"

please? Due to insufficient clarity in the proposal, the PMS team hasn't
been able to come up with a wording that wouldn't either require
changes to Portage (which appears to be against the Council's intent)
or that would permit behaviour currently seen as undesirable. As I
understand it, the issues are:

* What's to be done about sub-second timestamps? What about cases where
  the build filesystem supports them but the root filesystem doesn't?

* For which files must mtimes be preserved, and which can be modified?

* Is it the intent of this proposal to prevent package managers from
  automatically rewriting, say, #!/usr/bin/python to
  #!/opt/gentoo/bin/python if prefix is being used?

Or, a solution before the meeting would be fine too. It's just I don't
think this is something the PMS team is able to resolve on its own.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh