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 1N5n9m-0003Uo-30 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:12:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F043AE0B07; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB374E0B07 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31490652D5; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:12:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4AF1EE45.20309@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:12:37 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090907) 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 To: Ciaran McCreesh CC: Ulrich Mueller , gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: mtime preservation References: <19184.25176.380022.392451@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091103180632.0eb8e26c@snowcone> <19185.39090.798573.758417@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091104152835.369e3e18@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20091104152835.369e3e18@snowcone> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3297c025-7269-4340-ac75-b75db9561c60 X-Archives-Hash: d1a689148a6b9bfb9e97c8022ed37e45 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:07:30 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Obviously we cannot guarantee anything below the seconds level because >> of limitations in the underlying filesystems or software (e.g., tar >> for binpkgs). But is there a reason for limiting it further, i.e. not >> preserving sub-second timestamps if they are supported by both >> filesystems? > > So far as I can see, if they're fully supported on both filesystems, > Portage sometimes preserves nanosecond-resolution timestamps and > sometimes doesn't. So, requiring nanosecond-resolution timestamp > preservation where possible will need Portage changes. I think it always preserves them, as long as you have at least python-2.5 since that is required for floating-point mtime support. -- Thanks, Zac