Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh 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 t

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 09:26:59PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: > > This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on > > nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out > > there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can > >

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Duncan
Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:26:59 -0800 as excerpted: > Brian Harring wrote: >> This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on >> nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out >> there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can >

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Duncan
Brian Harring posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:14:27 -0800 as excerpted: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:49:17PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: >> 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]. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Zac Medico
Brian Harring wrote: > This discussion in generall is daft. No package can rely on > nanonsecond resolution for installation because the most common FS out > there (ext3) does *second* level resolution only. As such, I can > pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Duncan
Ulrich Mueller posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:45 +0100 as excerpted: > 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. Thanks. > I don't know of any example where

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Duncan
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:13:27 + as excerpted: > Examples will merely be > dismissed as one-off cases that can be worked around, or as relying upon > a string of coincidences that will "obviously" never really happen, > right up until they do, at which point they'll be dis

Re: [gentoo-dev] Next council meeting on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC

2009-11-25 Thread Zac Medico
Brian Harring wrote: > At this point, pkgcore/portage both have it implemented. Not sure if > portage has released it yet, but >=pkgcore-0.5.2 is in the tree w/ > said updating support. It's in >=portage-2.1.7.2 (and 2.1.7.x should be going stable in a month or so). -- Thanks, Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Next council meeting on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:50:22PM -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote: > The next council meeting will be on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC. If you want > us to discuss things please let us know in reply to this email. What > is already known is we'll talk about mtime preservation and prefix. > You can find thread

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:21:06PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:19:00 -0800 > Brian Harring wrote: > > Someone mind explaining to me why we're making mtime preservation so > > nasty? Having to enumerate every pathway that requires mtime > > preservation is pretty arduo

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 04:49:17PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: > 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 > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Zac Medico
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:52:00 + (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> That's a great explanation (thanks, I now know the details to the >> degree I'd be interested), but what was asked for was examples of >> breakage, aka actual bugs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Prefix: on EPREFIX, ED and EROOT inside ebuilds

2009-11-25 Thread Denis Dupeyron
It looks like this question is still unanswered: On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote: >> How are dynamically linked set*id programs going to work? Denis.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Prefix: on EPREFIX, ED and EROOT inside ebuilds

2009-11-25 Thread Denis Dupeyron
Things seem to be progressing nicely on this front. We have answers to the questions people had and they look satisfactory to me. One thing that I think would be valuable is a document that explains the average dev how to make his/her ebuilds prefix compliant with links to more details when necess

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:52:00 + (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > That's a great explanation (thanks, I now know the details to the > degree I'd be interested), but what was asked for was examples of > breakage, aka actual bugs. Why? You can easily look and see that it's broken. Exam

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Duncan
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:27:18 + as excerpted: > Portage uses two ways of merging a file: os.rename() and the manual way. > > os.rename() correctly preserves mtimes. > > Python's os.utime call, which is what Portage uses to preserve mtimes > for files that it installs th

[gentoo-dev] Next council meeting on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC

2009-11-25 Thread Denis Dupeyron
The next council meeting will be on 7 Dec 2009 at 1900UTC. If you want us to discuss things please let us know in reply to this email. What is already known is we'll talk about mtime preservation and prefix. You can find threads about those at: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_a9e26414f227

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:13:58 -0700 Denis Dupeyron wrote: > A quick note to tell you that I have tried to look for examples of > breakage due to how mtime preservation is currently implemented in > portage. Unfortunately I didn't find anything, maybe because I'm not > knowledgeable enough or becaus

[gentoo-dev] Re: mtime preservation

2009-11-25 Thread Denis Dupeyron
A quick note to tell you that I have tried to look for examples of breakage due to how mtime preservation is currently implemented in portage. Unfortunately I didn't find anything, maybe because I'm not knowledgeable enough or because I can't afford to spend any more time on this. If any of you can

[gentoo-dev] QA last rites for sci-visualization/gfsview

2009-11-25 Thread Diego E . Pettenò
# Diego E. Pettenò (25 Nov 2009) # on behalf of QA team # # Fails to build, bug #250372 opened in December 2008. # # Removal on 2010-01-24 sci-visualization/gfsview

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bugzilla testers wanted - "Email send to: no one" issue

2009-11-25 Thread Christian Ruppert
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:01:06 + Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:09:23 -0500, Mike Frysinger > wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 November 2009 13:33:55 Christian Ruppert wrote: > >> Dear gentoo-dev subscriber, > >> > >> as some of you might have been noticed, we're having some trouble

[gentoo-dev] QA last rites for www-client/rabbitticker

2009-11-25 Thread Diego E . Pettenò
# Diego E. Pettenò (25 Nov 2009) # on behalf of QA team # # Fails to build (bug #276675, July 2009); imported in 2004, # never bumped, no maintainer, upstream homepage unavailable. # # Removal on 2010-01-24 www-client/rabbitticker

Re: [gentoo-dev] autoconf-2.64 moved to unstable

2009-11-25 Thread Samuli Suominen
Mike Frysinger wrote: > just a heads up. most packages are fixed now, so time to get wider testing. > -mike Thanks! It's about time. :) Also note to everyone: If KDE3 based application is failing because of this, realistically don't expect it to be fixed by nothing else than committing a Qt4/KD

[gentoo-dev] QA last rites for www-apps/Embperl

2009-11-25 Thread Diego E . Pettenò
# Diego E. Pettenò (25 Nov 2009) # on behalf of QA team # # Fails to build, bug #248474, open since November 2008. # # Removal on 2010-01-24 www-apps/Embperl