delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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 |
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
From: | Eric Melski <spam AT melski DOT net> |
Subject: | Re: ctime: creation or change time? |
Date: | Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:14:28 -0800 |
Lines: | 31 |
Message-ID: | <d08cg4$e01$1@sea.gmane.org> |
References: | <1109798389 DOT 42262df5e7c1d AT webmail DOT namezero DOT com> <20050303113059 DOT GC2839 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <d087jg$t98$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <20050304001323 DOT GA8229 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Complaints-To: | usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org |
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: | nat.electric-cloud.com |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 |
In-Reply-To: | <20050304001323.GA8229@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> |
X-Gmane-MailScanner: | Found to be clean |
X-Gmane-MailScanner: | Found to be clean |
X-MailScanner-From: | goc-cygwin AT m DOT gmane DOT org |
X-MailScanner-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
X-IsSubscribed: | yes |
Note-from-DJ: | This may be spam |
Christopher Faylor wrote: >>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. The problem described in the following post to this mailing list earlier today sounds like it is caused by Cygwin's new treatment of ctime: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-03/msg00165.html Thanks, Eric Melski -- 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/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |