| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Neither of those are what Portage currently does. It is my |
| 5 |
> understanding that the Council doesn't want to require any changes to |
| 6 |
> Portage behaviour for this. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Ideally we would get by without changes to Portage but the goal isn't |
| 10 |
avoiding to change Portage but to make sure the packages that require |
| 11 |
certain behavior for mtimes work if it requires changes to Portage in |
| 12 |
order to work then so be it. They are not likely to be huge so they can |
| 13 |
be done for EAPI 3 or if they are just postpone this to EAPI 4 like I |
| 14 |
suggested in the first place. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Regards, |
| 17 |
Petteri |
Archives