X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<4F5A6294.2070206@t-online.de>
Date:	Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:05:40 +0100
From:	Christian Franke <Christian DOT Franke AT t-online DOT de>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Firefox/10.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.7.2
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: rebase keeps last modification time of DLL unchanged
References:	<4F57DC0F DOT 2090401 AT t-online DOT de> <20120308093206 DOT GR5159 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4F5918A2 DOT 4090707 AT t-online DOT de> <20120309084307 DOT GA5159 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20120309154754 DOT GB31291 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4F5A4A5F DOT 7090207 AT t-online DOT de> <20120309194733 DOT GA18960 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20120309194733.GA18960@calimero.vinschen.de>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar  9 19:22, Christian Franke wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:43:07AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> On Mar  8 21:37, Christian Franke wrote:
>>>>> rebase does not explicitly (re)set the timestamp after rebasing. Is
>>>>> this by design?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, let me put it like this.  Rebase just does its job.  It doesn't
>>>> actually care for the file timestamp, only for the file header
>>>> timestamps.  This is not by design, it's just as it is.  So the next
>>>> question is obvious.  Do you think it should change the timestamp or
>>>> not?  Why?  A patch is simple and I have it actually already waiting in
>>>> the scenery.
>> Both have it its pros and cons, so it depends on user's preferences:
>> Preserve st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups are not polluted with unnecessary DLL copies
>> after rebaseall is run.
>>
>> Update st_mtime:
>> + Incremental Backups provide an accurate copy (including
>> /etc/rebase.db.i386 which matches DLL states)
>>
>>
>>> I don't think the default should change but maybe an option could be
>>> added for people who want to see updated times.
>> Agree.
> I'm not so sure this option would make a lot of sense.  An option not
> used by rebaseall by default won't be used anyway.

Of course rebaseall should have the same option and pass it to rebase.

>    We should decide
> which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.

If an option is not an option: I would vote for "change time stamp".

>
> Actually, the aforementioned backup scenario implies to me that setting
> the timestamp makes more sense.  Restoring a broken Cygwin installation
> from a backup and then immediately getting rebase problems again, just
> because an incremental backup didn't catch the rebased DLLs sounds pretty
> frustrating.  OTOH, who's doing incremental backup these days?

Problem also appears if file base synchronization (life -> backup 
system) is done by rsync, robocopy, or whatever (I do this daily).

Christian


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -