Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/03/03/19:13:15
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:50:56PM -0800, Eric Melski wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Mar 2 13:19, eric AT melski DOT net wrote:
>>>In fact, NTFS has no notion of file change time as described in POSIX.
>>>Is there any chance of undoing this change? An alternative solution
>>>might be to simply use the NTFS file modify time for both the mtime and
>>>ctime of the file, since those two are almost always updated together
>>>anyway.
>>
>>Well, we're trying to be POSIX like, so that's nothing we're going to
>>revert. I guess we're using ctime as change time even more in future.
>
>I understand that you're trying to be POSIX-like, but I wonder if doing
>so at the cost of compatibility with the host OS is wise. To be sure,
>the implementation you have chosen will break some Windows
>applications.
>
>It seems to me that ultimately you are emulating POSIX-like behavior on
>top of what is fundamentally NOT a POSIX-like system. If that is so,
>then why not use a different implementation that is sure not to break
>existing non-Cygwin Windows applications? The proposal I made
>previously (report Windows modify time as both Cygwin mtime and ctime)
>would give Cygwin applications a reasonable approximation of ctime in
>the POSIX sense, while retaining a correct value of creation time for
>Windows applications.
Your arguments would be a little more persuasive if you did more than
postulate the surety of breakage and actually pointed to real breakage
or, at least, demonstrated how a windows application would be harmed by
cygwin's handling of ctime.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -