Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

[Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:45 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, those are examples of packages relying upon something that is
> undefined behaviour, and that behaves differently depending upon the
> Portage version you use.
> 
>> I don't know of any example where non-preservation of nanosecond
>> timestamps would cause problems.
> 
> Not non-preservation. Partial and inconsistent corruption.

Wouldn't "loss of precision" be a more accurate description? Of the
known packages which require timestamp preservation, do any of them
use sub-second precision in their timestamp comparisons?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac