Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:59:45 +0100 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> 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 that is > undefined behaviour, and that behaves differently depending upon the > Portage version you use. > >> I don't know of any example where non-preservation of nanosecond >> timestamps would cause problems. > > Not non-preservation. Partial and inconsistent corruption.
Wouldn't "loss of precision" be a more accurate description? Of the known packages which require timestamp preservation, do any of them use sub-second precision in their timestamp comparisons? -- Thanks, Zac
