1 |
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:18 -0700 |
2 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Luca's and Zac's comments work for me. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force |
6 |
> in a change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given |
7 |
> syntax for VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't |
8 |
> really want to open that can of worms. |
9 |
|
10 |
Uhm. Two things. |
11 |
|
12 |
First: this is not about existing syntax. Different Portage versions do |
13 |
different things with mtimes, so currently ebuilds can't rely upon any |
14 |
particular behaviour. The proposal is about standardising behaviour for |
15 |
EAPI 3, which would allow EAPI 3 ebuilds to rely upon mtimes being |
16 |
handled in a particular way. The previous Council rejected this |
17 |
proposal, but Ulrich wants it reconsidered. If it is reconsidered, the |
18 |
question is what behaviour we want to standardise. Going with "what |
19 |
Portage does" is undesirable for two reasons -- first, it leads to |
20 |
files with timestamps like 1 Jan 1970 being merged to /, and second, |
21 |
it's undefined behaviour for any file that's modified by the package |
22 |
manager (e.g. for stripping, fixing WORKDIR mentions, compressing docs, |
23 |
repairing QA violations and so on -- there are currently no restrictions |
24 |
on what a package manager can tidy up). |
25 |
|
26 |
Second, VDB and binary packages have nothing to do with PMS. |
27 |
|
28 |
If you just want to document "what Portage does", then PMS and EAPI 3 |
29 |
need no changes, since "what Portage does" depends upon what Portage |
30 |
version you're using. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |