Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<011f01c1c418$b6f84e30$d700a8c0@mchasecompaq>
From:	"Michael A Chase" <mchase AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
To:	"David A. Cobb" <superbiskit AT cox DOT net>
Cc:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AB0F AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3C8414CC DOT 7080305 AT cox DOT net>
Subject:	Re: [BUG] NetInstaller leaves bad dates
Date:	Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:37 -0800
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Cobb" <superbiskit AT cox DOT net>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Cc: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>; <info-lilypond AT gnu DOT org>; "XEmacs NT Mailing List"
<xemacs-winnt AT xemacs DOT org>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 16:43
Subject: Re: [BUG] NetInstaller leaves bad dates


> Win98se (4.10.2222), Fat32fs with multiple PMagic partitions
> Cygwin Netinstall 2.125.2.10
> Xemacs Netinstall 1.2.2.1.2.7 ( ! Wow ! )
> Lillypond Netinstall 2.96.jcn1
>
> With that much variation, I suspect the common point-of-failure may be
> Cygwin TAR 1.13.19-1


Setup.exe (Cygwin's install tool) has its own methods for extracting from
compressed tar files; it does not use tar, gunzip, or bunzip2.

The problem is more likely a system configuration issue.

> I think there is a known deficiency because the resolution of FAT32
> filesystem timestamps is 2-sec (vice 1-sec or less on a *Nix box)  For
> XEmacs, that could also be why installed *.el files appear newer than
> *.elc files.  Ummm - maybe that doesn't make sense either; maybe fixing
> the invalid dates causes that secondary problem.

The two second granularity in FAT file system dates shouldn't result in
invalid dates.  Are your system clock and timezone correct?  Do the dates of
the files being complained about appear reasonable to ls or dir?
--
Mac :})
** I normally forward private questions to the appropriate mail list. **
Ask Smarter: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Give a hobbit a fish and he eats fish for a day.
Give a hobbit a ring and he eats fish for an age.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -