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 1NDSYw-0001cV-O8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:50:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CDE8E09BA; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:49:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F72E09BA for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:49:19 +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 0DC4067BE7 for ; Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B0DD08D.8040505@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:49:17 -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 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation References: <19184.25176.380022.392451@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> <7c612fc60911251313i705a182as6cf50402c7829beb@mail.gmail.com> <20091125212718.5deb42f8@snowcone> <20091125221327.324e11fb@snowcone> <19213.46817.620937.656202@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20091126001540.08a6e193@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <20091126001540.08a6e193@snowmobile> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ba23b959-c604-4c93-bd33-55289a6df9fc X-Archives-Hash: 463651d36ba19ee0c446aa2ddfd76c07 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:45 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller 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