Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1185 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:35:53PM +0000, David Leverton wrote:
> 2009/11/26 Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>:
> > It's an academic discussion, and pointless.  We don't mandate the
> > filesystems PMS implementations are run on- as such we cannot make a
> > gurantee to ebuilds that nanosecond resolution is available.  It's
> > daft to encode in the spec NS resolution when it's essentially
> > impossible to gurantee it
> 
> If we're not going to insist on preserving nanoseconds as far as
> possible, then package managers should be required to explcitly clear
> the nanoseconds part.

I'd had the same thought actually.  If folks really consider it to be 
needed, then jam it in as far as I'm concerned.  It has the potential 
to remove a heisenbug or two.

Presuming I'm reading posixmodule correctly from the python source, 
pkgcore already does second truncation (reliance on utime) and portage 
does it whenever movefile is invoked- any direct mv invocations 
obviously do not however.

Basically, if stat_float_mtimes is False (the case for all portage 
context and most of pkgcore context), os.utime auto truncates to 
second precision.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]