1 |
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:14:27 -0800 |
2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on |
4 |
> nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS |
5 |
> out there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can |
6 |
> pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require |
7 |
> nanosecond resolution for installation. |
8 |
|
9 |
We aren't discussing requiring nanosecond resolution. We're discussing |
10 |
not getting corrupted timestamps, which is what happens. |
11 |
|
12 |
If you're building on a filesystem which does support nanosecond |
13 |
resolution timestamps, Portage will screw up the *second* part of the |
14 |
timestamp as well as the nanosecond part. |
15 |
|
16 |
-- |
17 |
Ciaran McCreesh |