tor 2009-11-26 klockan 05:04 + skrev 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 happ
Duncan wrote:
> David Leverton posted on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:35:53 + as excerpted:
>
>> If we're not going to insist on preserving nanoseconds as far as
>> possible, then package managers should be required to explcitly clear
>> the nanoseconds part.
>
> While I'm not sure what it's going to
David Leverton posted on Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:35:53 + as excerpted:
> If we're not going to insist on preserving nanoseconds as far as
> possible, then package managers should be required to explcitly clear
> the nanoseconds part.
While I'm not sure what it's going to do to install-times and t
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
>
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].
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
Brian Harring posted on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:19:00 -0800 as excerpted:
>> "Alternatively, we could simply make portage spawn the mv binary
>> whenever rename fails (it fails when the source and destination are on
>> different devices). Although it's relatively slow, it should solve the
>> problem."
12 matches
Mail list logo
