X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-Yahoo-SMTP: QDdxPgyswBCK2bx7SNYDilAqkd6GnSZOMbWnqiDrvOLygeouYdY-
Message-ID: <4F5BCA7D.1070407@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 15:41:17 -0600
From: Robert Miles <robertmiles AT bellsouth DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

On 3/9/2012 1:47 PM, 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:
> 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.  We should decide
> which behaviour makes more sense and then just do it.
>
> 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?
>
> Corinna
>
I am.  I don't feel like buying a new hard drive or a new disk server 
every month
or so in order to preserve all my backups as long as I often need them - 
some
problems simply aren't obvious for a few months.

Robert Miles

--
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