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
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:32:24 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Juergen Kuersch <kuenospam AT gmx DOT de>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	tar 1.13.19-1: option -N (--newer) extracts wrong files (incremental backup)
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-Authenticated-Sender:	#0000382238 AT gmx DOT net
X-Authenticated-IP:	[193.192.230.3]
Message-ID:	<21605.1031905944@www41.gmx.net>
X-Flags:	0001

Hi all,

When a directory is archived with 'tar --newer', only files with an mtime or
ctime of later than the specified date should be included in the archive,
according to the tar documentation.

However, the atime of a file is considered, as well, leading to addition of
files to the archive which were accessed, but not modified. This results in
much too big archives for incremental backups. 

I checked atime, ctime and mtime of the affected files with the ls
--time=... command.

Cygwin version is 1.3.11-3.
OS version is Windows 2000 Advanced Server Ver 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack
3.

The directory to be archived is on an SMB share on another Windows 2000
computer (same version like above).

Note a similar question arose on Feb 15, 2002, by Cesar Escobar Maya, but
there was no helpful answer.

Can I do anything against this behaviour?

GRTX,

Juergen Kuersch (Mr)

-- 
PGP public keys 0x1E6CD331 (DH/DSS) and 0x830E1B55 (RSA)
available on public key servers


--
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 -