Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:33:04 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: ctime: creation or change time?
Message-ID: <20050304013304.GB8229@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <1109798389.42262df5e7c1d@webmail.namezero.com> <20050303113059.GC2839@cygbert.vinschen.de> <d087jg$t98$1@sea.gmane.org> <20050304001323.GA8229@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <d08cg4$e01$1@sea.gmane.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d08cg4$e01$1@sea.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:14:28PM -0800, Eric Melski wrote:
>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

Since the CVS in question is a cygwin version, if this really is a
problem with ctime then it seems rather strange that cygwin's attempts
to behave more like POSIX would break a utility which relies on that
very behavior.

In any event, this isn't the postulated problem with a native windows
application.

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/

