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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/