Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-04-01 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 19:14 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> 1. Record two timestamps: >> before calling pkg_setup, timestamp1; >> after src_install has completed, timestamp2. >> >> 2. After src_install and before merging (the exact time wo

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-31 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 19:14 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > I'll try to summarise the current state of discussion in > . The goal is to satisfy two > (apparently contradictory) requirements: > > a) Some packages need a preserved ordering of file modification >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-31 Thread Timothy Redaelli
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 00:59:57 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > [1] For "find -newermt" we will need >=findutils-4.3.3 which shouldn't > be a problem because 4.3.4 went stable in May 2007. No, BSD find does not support it and we don't want to use findutils. Neither busybox find supports it. Make it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: > For most features the block is the need for Portage to implement the > feature. If I read the thread correctly, Portage already implements > what is wanted here so it's just a matter of agreeing on the > specification. Not completely. Portage prese

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Petteri Räty
Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > I am aware of the fact that we are late for EAPI 3 (partly because I > didn't expect that the change would require an EAPI bump). Question to > the council: is it still possible to include this? Considering that > there is a lot of breakage, as well as strange workarounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Tiziano Müller
Am Montag, den 30.03.2009, 18:05 +0200 schrieb Peter Alfredsen: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:40:14 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > No, an EAPI bump is necessary. Older (post-EAPI) Portage versions do > > something different, so any ebuild relying upon particular behaviour > > is already broken.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: > On behalf of the Lisp project (which includes the Emacs subproject) > I'd like to propose that preservation of mtimes be included as a > requirement of EAPI3. > [...] > Background: Dynamic languages such as Common Lisp and Elisp, but >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009, Peter Alfredsen wrote: >> No, an EAPI bump is necessary. Older (post-EAPI) Portage versions >> do something different, so any ebuild relying upon particular >> behaviour is already broken. > For an example of this, see http://bugs.gentoo.org/264308 I would say that is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:40:14 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > No, an EAPI bump is necessary. Older (post-EAPI) Portage versions do > something different, so any ebuild relying upon particular behaviour > is already broken. For an example of this, see http://bugs.gentoo.org/264308

Re: [gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:32:12 +0200 "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" wrote: > On behalf of the Lisp project (which includes the Emacs subproject) > I'd like to propose that preservation of mtimes be included as a > requirement of EAPI3. If you want mtime pre

[gentoo-dev] Preserving mtimes for EAPI3

2009-03-30 Thread Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On behalf of the Lisp project (which includes the Emacs subproject) I'd like to propose that preservation of mtimes be included as a requirement of EAPI3. An EAPI bump may not be really necessary for this - after all we're just specifying previou