From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Mwg96-00088p-Lt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:54:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31978E0767; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homeless.linbsd.net (homeless.linbsd.net [64.127.112.66]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16492E0767 for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (dsl092-011-131.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.11.131]) by homeless.linbsd.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AAFBB5788D; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-council Cc: Zac Medico In-Reply-To: <19151.46897.919575.802605@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <4ACF9980.3060103@gentoo.org> <19151.45247.151790.43476@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <4ACFB302.80708@gentoo.org> <19151.46897.919575.802605@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:18 -0700 Message-Id: <1255197258.5783.8.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6b77f375-68a3-4d32-a059-2f6fecffbdd9 X-Archives-Hash: 571613e4a5d26a30f2baf68b7c35bfd9 On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 00:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote: > > > I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it. > > Quoting Zac from : > | For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes. > | If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's > | taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary > | potential source of conflict. > > Ulrich Luca's and Zac's comments work for me. Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force in a change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given syntax for VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't really want to open that can of worms.