| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 5 |
> Hi, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The full log along |
| 8 |
> with the summary will appear shortly at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Regards, |
| 11 |
> Thomas |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
and from #gentoo-council: |
| 14 |
[do apr 9 2009] [22:41:47] <dberkholz> those of you with a pet feature, feel |
| 15 |
free to respond to the summary on -dev if you have some compelling reason why |
| 16 |
it's super easy to get in and can't be pushed back. keep in mind there's no |
| 17 |
reason we need to take forever for EAPI 4, either |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
pet feature: mtime preservation |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
supereasy: yes, this is already the current behavior of both portage and pkgcore |
| 23 |
so nothing needs to be implemented here. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
can't be pushed back: the mtime of to-be-installed files is currently |
| 26 |
unspecified. Since the behavior of portage isn't changing nothing will break due |
| 27 |
to this non-change, but it will make hacks that work around the package manager |
| 28 |
(officially) obsolete and make it simpler to keep track of compiled code for |
| 29 |
dynamic languages. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
There is an extended proposal for changing only those mtimes that are too old or |
| 32 |
too new (in the future). If that is indeed desirable this could be changed in |
| 33 |
EAPI4, but it seems easy if not better/cleaner if mtime mangling is done on a |
| 34 |
per-ebuild basis for those few that need it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
If the package manager preserves mtimes they can still easily be changed in |
| 37 |
individual ebuilds. |
| 38 |
However if the package manager does not preserve mtimes and they need to be |
| 39 |
recovered, then the mtimes need to be saved at a point where mtimes have not yet |
| 40 |
been mangled and then restored after the package manager is done with mtime |
| 41 |
mangling. This is possible but the exact time of mangling would then need to be |
| 42 |
specified. This is clearly a hack. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I know I personally asked for mtime preservation on 7-5-2008 on this list[1] and |
| 45 |
the issue has surely existed even longer. Let's get rid of this problem already. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Thanks, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Marijn |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
[1]:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/55953 |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
- -- |
| 54 |
If you cannot read my mind, then listen to what I say. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML |
| 57 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode |
| 58 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 59 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 60 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
iEYEARECAAYFAknlJzEACgkQp/VmCx0OL2yokQCfRAjuMnssCQ1sVajiX+VVdHBC |
| 63 |
FBUAnjUFcmBXQMvpqiFxrSNB4w69a3Fm |
| 64 |
=RcL4 |
| 65 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives