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 is > preferable in two weeks. I will also ask the council on whether we > still want mtime preservation for EAPI3 or if we now think it's better > to push it to EAPI4. Please discuss. You can probably do method 1 retroactively for all EAPIs, since the few existing packages which require mtime preservation are presumably broken already anyway (any damage is already done), and packages which don't require mtime preservation are not hurt by it. -- Thanks, Zac
