delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/03/05/09:22:37

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: <3C84D381.2070104@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 09:17:37 -0500
From: "David A. Cobb" <superbiskit AT cox DOT net>
Organization: CoxNet User
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020304
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael A Chase <mchase AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com, XEmacs NT Mailing List <xemacs-winnt AT xemacs DOT org>,
Lillypond Discussion <info-lilypond AT gnu DOT org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] NetInstaller leaves bad dates
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AB0F AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au> <3C8414CC DOT 7080305 AT cox DOT net> <011f01c1c418$b6f84e30$d700a8c0 AT mchasecompaq>

Michael A Chase wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>
>>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.
>
Does it not, however, use "library" code snatched from those 
applications?  I'd hate to think Chris and the others re-invented all 
those wheels.

>
>
>>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?
>

My system clock is synched to the national time standard every 3 hours, 
so it's pretty damn close to "correct."

Sadly, I have only noticed the problem while in the midst of a disk 
scan.  The scan programs don't tell me what they see, only that they 
find it invalid.  Next time it happens I'll tell the scanner to ignore 
the problem so I can examine it more closely.  The other clue is, IMHO, 
that Xemacs finds the .el files newer than the .elc even though both 
should have been in the download with the .elc timestamp newer.

-- 
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate
"By God's Grace I am a Christian man, by my actions a great sinner." -- The Way of a Pilgrim; R. M. French, tr.
Life is too short to tolerate crappy software.
.




--
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 -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019