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] Agenda for October meeting
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:49:47
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> EAPI 3 is reopened for the purpose of including one sole feature, >> namely preservation of file modification times, as outlined in >> bug 264130, option B of comment 26 [1]. Both Portage and Pkgcore >> already comply with this, so it would be zero implementation cost.
> Why go with an inferior solution? Why not go with a solution that > requires the package manager to fix broken mtimes?
Because it would be non-zero implementation cost for Portage, so probably out of question for EAPI 3. And it's not at all clear if the solution is inferior. Since half a year, nobody cared to answer the question of comment 25 of mentioned bug. But if you want, the council can also vote if it should be option A (current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved), B (optional update of "old" mtimes), or C (mandatory update). @betelgeuse: Could you please add this to the agenda, too?
> Also, what are the rules regarding this and things like stripping > and other fixes and changes that the package manager performs upon > files before merging them?
This is outside the scope of this proposal, and (at least for now) I'm not going to work anything out. Ulrich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>