Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

[Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>]

>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
>> That's a great explanation (thanks, I now know the details to the
>> degree I'd be interested), but what was asked for was examples of
>> breakage, aka actual bugs.

> Why? You can easily look and see that it's broken.

Only for a suitable definition of "broken".

> Examples will merely be dismissed as one-off cases that can be
> worked around, or as relying upon a string of coincidences that will
> "obviously" never really happen, right up until they do, at which
> point they'll be dismissed with a WORKSFORME.

Real examples would be issues like bugs 83877 [1] or 263387 [2].
Nothing that could be easily dismissed or worked around. Both issues
are fixed with Portage since a long time.

I don't know of any example where non-preservation of nanosecond
timestamps would cause problems.

> What you have is a proof that it's broken, which is far better than
> an example.

So we have a proven theorem, but unfortunately the cases where it is
applicable form an empty set. ;-)

Ulrich

[1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/83877#c36>
[2] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/263387>