| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:07:30 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Obviously we cannot guarantee anything below the seconds level because |
| 5 |
>> of limitations in the underlying filesystems or software (e.g., tar |
| 6 |
>> for binpkgs). But is there a reason for limiting it further, i.e. not |
| 7 |
>> preserving sub-second timestamps if they are supported by both |
| 8 |
>> filesystems? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems, |
| 11 |
> Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and |
| 12 |
> sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp |
| 13 |
> preservation where possible will need Portage changes. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least |
| 16 |
python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support. |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Thanks, |
| 19 |
Zac |
Archives