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 1MtN8L-0007HD-70 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:59:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6701E0775; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (ey-out-1920.google.com [74.125.78.144]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63312E0775 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 14:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so48425eye.40 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=ZYuCJsFObCuhsBhliYncJjPcQBaxyxDCCr+XknIt3WM=; b=bmdcRxsRK7M6OFlWXW0FpJZGPK1jMGf78jvc8XWUSWth2J2v3hV57357+unZmSXpAp aZOMieTpwjbyj080wVu0hDv4sKpa25owbmXLfOZOkUBLuD9y5cJkeT2bbqsSB6f8Tonf BdZ3ZTcpbMgWrHAYoKRPm2qrpSpC0/SvBhS0M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=jXEfMVURtiLPumeDyRNndSbAJ2cZ7RqLP7a2/89fIYGH3kU3w4DCaf6PPf4z1+HoNp RJrIFjFq13ejxj7rS6mmn3Lam1xt6Ir+j3mHiM8OPnssrKrCf4IChWkwzRQc5DDqrnId NMz0bAPh3NoPBh7nl2p1GsOLyN28h+L5OMnQI= Received: by 10.211.171.12 with SMTP id y12mr2610553ebo.51.1254409191570; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snowmobile (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm32341eyx.6.2009.10.01.07.59.51 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:59:24 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: Ulrich Mueller Cc: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting Message-ID: <20091001155924.1eb80be8@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <19140.49543.984939.521738@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <4AC4B665.2000902@gentoo.org> <19140.47881.499747.325046@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091001152710.6ed617b4@snowmobile> <19140.49543.984939.521738@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.5; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/izWrnMoTaOJUbZW7etAvBGE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 5c08d551-6f58-44e7-aa78-59e5da1a5ffa X-Archives-Hash: 2ca77c68df1b281a3aab8acd630d1836 --Sig_/izWrnMoTaOJUbZW7etAvBGE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 16:49:43 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > Why go with an inferior solution? Why not go with a solution that > > requires the package manager to fix broken mtimes? >=20 > Because it would be non-zero implementation cost for Portage, so > probably out of question for EAPI 3. It's cheap, and it's doing it the right way. If we were to design the feature up-front rather than going with whatever Portage does, we'd go with mtime fixing. > And it's not at all clear if the solution is inferior. Since half a > year, nobody cared to answer the question of comment 25 of mentioned > bug. Because comment 25 is entirely missing the point. The objection is not to preservation. The objection is to pure preservation with no handling for dodgy mtimes. > > Also, what are the rules regarding this and things like stripping > > and other fixes and changes that the package manager performs upon > > files before merging them? >=20 > This is outside the scope of this proposal, and (at least for now) I'm > not going to work anything out. It's not. It's a necessary part of the proposal. You need to define the behaviour here, since if you don't, we're back to ebuilds relying upon undefined behaviour. What you're effectively saying by ignoring this is "mtimes must be preserved, except when they're not". That isn't good enough, since it would be entirely legal for a package manager to not do any preservation at all then. Alternatively, you're saying "mtimes must always be preserved", in which case Portage isn't compliant. This isn't something you can just ignore. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/izWrnMoTaOJUbZW7etAvBGE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrEw9AACgkQ96zL6DUtXhH7pACfaIagdMIEeV2/rr+wKxGxCvgP eicAn3D8W0iwrnLzdvInPVPtJp8WOHy+ =xwv4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/izWrnMoTaOJUbZW7etAvBGE--