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 1NChNN-0002jL-Mi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:27:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D687E0AC0 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD92BE08D0; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:39:35 +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 45049B4A0B; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B0AF312.9090405@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:39:46 -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-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation References: <19184.25176.380022.392451@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <19186.42949.760878.199957@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091108191439.3fcee79d@snowcone> <7c612fc60911090718y144319f5lc9827a5e2e153c2@mail.gmail.com> <20091109153429.502e272f@snowcone> <19193.4389.637969.727075@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091119221248.539eedd9@snowmobile> <7c612fc60911191614h5e37c849y50ad217a828fa744@mail.gmail.com> <20091120001820.7274bdf7@snowmobile> <4B07362D.2010108@gentoo.org> <7c612fc60911231049n4a51ddb0u30ae72d8ed93cdec@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7c612fc60911231049n4a51ddb0u30ae72d8ed93cdec@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1dd584d6-7f89-4768-80e3-60ff7805f4ac X-Archives-Hash: daf1b54f428f6a07cff96aedc9693b78 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > 1- All packages are treated equally. Some files have their mtime > preserved, some don't. We need to agree on what files have their mtime > preserved and at what phase the mtime is frozen. I'd vote for method 1. > My intention is to ask the council to vote on which method is > preferable in two weeks. I will also ask the council on whether we > still want mtime preservation for EAPI3 or if we now think it's better > to push it to EAPI4. Please discuss. You can probably do method 1 retroactively for all EAPIs, since the few existing packages which require mtime preservation are presumably broken already anyway (any damage is already done), and packages which don't require mtime preservation are not hurt by it. -- Thanks, Zac