On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:49:25AM -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 2- Here's the second idea, shamelessly pasted (note that it says EAPI4
> below instead of EAPI3 but this is irrelevant to the idea):
>
> "Thus, I would let EAPI 4 ebuilds call dopreservemtimes (with an API
> similar to docompress) i
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
I'm going to try and sum up the situation of the thread started in
[1]. Feel free to correct me or add to the summary in replies.
There seems to be two main ideas. I have removed the authors' name in
quotes below in order to make sure we talk about the ideas and not who
proposed them.
1- All pack
# Diego E. Pettenò (23 Nov 2009)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to build since November 2008 (bug #248390).
#
# Removal on 2010-01-22
sys-apps/inputd
