Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Cc: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>, gentoo-council@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:12:42
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation (was: Agenda (draft) for November meeting 2009-11-09) by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:07:30 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: >> Obviously we cannot guarantee anything below the seconds level because >> of limitations in the underlying filesystems or software (e.g., tar >> for binpkgs). But is there a reason for limiting it further, i.e. not >> preserving sub-second timestamps if they are supported by both >> filesystems? > > So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems, > Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and > sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp > preservation where possible will need Portage changes.
I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support. -- Thanks, Zac


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>