Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Eric Melski Subject: Re: ctime: creation or change time? Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:14:28 -0800 Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <1109798389.42262df5e7c1d@webmail.namezero.com> <20050303113059.GC2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20050304001323.GA8229@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.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@m.gmane.org X-MailScanner-To: cygwin@cygwin.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/