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 1NDX18-0003Pe-JD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:35:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36216E096B; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f187.google.com (mail-yw0-f187.google.com [209.85.211.187]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE23E096B for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywh17 with SMTP id 17so432319ywh.2 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=89eDThP3GcmXYfcDL+SBsuZ62abq0thnIP8uCf641n8=; b=h76vAU/jicB0iG7RHWQd+hr1xs8i+0bH9hfd1/jViBVfZCYuatd92o3xcaTQiFUGs6 d1eZrguz/MgauxrUrYJLgq28XtB1gPMZQZa0tPpHBAPNnd8ZQYPgxbuzy2qDSjkdDoVK EM8gyTGuEOKdBYVa14F/C3vstKquYp0tl86+M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=izeLOdAwPwAZ+Cotetu9j1F6bu8s4rSg6y4VcwFah6FzPb1TaDzkxm9O5FGDwUMFuI yRegzMIAtAwMHbdKb6Md06abv4CFANM3JfXc8q7gRlPI2YdIbaEyiU1gMXzQmHyp2rEK VwRpu7V1Zf2xDMrZV4G1SULFBQaGLNmKhmnjo= Received: by 10.91.203.1 with SMTP id f1mr11490916agq.55.1259213720820; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.gmail.com (c-98-210-130-131.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.210.130.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 23sm192580yxe.18.2009.11.25.21.35.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by smtp.gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:16 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:35:16 -0800 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation Message-ID: <20091126053516.GA6082@hrair> References: <7c612fc60911231049n4a51ddb0u30ae72d8ed93cdec@mail.gmail.com> <7c612fc60911251313i705a182as6cf50402c7829beb@mail.gmail.com> <20091125212718.5deb42f8@snowcone> <20091125221327.324e11fb@snowcone> <19213.46817.620937.656202@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091126001540.08a6e193@snowmobile> <4B0DD08D.8040505@gentoo.org> <20091126011427.GD23443@hrair> <4B0E11A3.5020506@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B0E11A3.5020506@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 97e390a8-1d23-4554-bc50-aa6bae870ea2 X-Archives-Hash: 8f404837dce373cf0926fba812c27e62 --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:26:59PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: > > This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on=20 > > nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out= =20 > > there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can=20 > > pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require=20 > > nanosecond resolution for installation. >=20 > Your "guarantee" is filesystem-specific. However, if we can > establish that all known packages with timestamp preservation > requirements do their timestamp comparisons with 1-second > granularity, then we'll have a much safer (filesystem-independent) > assumption. I've no complaints with mandating that ebuilds can rely on second=20 level resolution- it's a valid gurantee as far as I'm concerned. =20 Further any fs that can't offer it involves the user doing something=20 seriously wonky, thus their problem if the ebuild horks. If/when the major filesystems out there all do NS level resolution,=20 and are in common deployment, I'd have no arguement extending the=20 spec to mandating NS level resolution. I've serious problems w/=20 mandating NS resolution in PMS prior to that however. ~harring --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksOE5QACgkQsiLx3HvNzgfcBgCfSpAR4t3UJ3ugSvHTwgZoerV+ JMUAn1llSvYgP9Sy731of5ybq7ZxFxvG =HzZ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--