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 > > pretty much gurantee there is *zero* packages out there that require > > nanosecond resolution for installation. > > Your "guarantee" is filesystem-specific. However, if we can > establish that all known packages with timestamp preservation > requirements do their timestamp comparisons with 1-second > granularity, then we'll have a much safer (filesystem-independent) > assumption.
I've no complaints with mandating that ebuilds can rely on second level resolution- it's a valid gurantee as far as I'm concerned. Further any fs that can't offer it involves the user doing something seriously wonky, thus their problem if the ebuild horks. If/when the major filesystems out there all do NS level resolution, and are in common deployment, I'd have no arguement extending the spec to mandating NS level resolution. I've serious problems w/ mandating NS resolution in PMS prior to that however. ~harring
pgpaRgCDR4if6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
