Re: rebase keeps last modification time of DLL unchanged

[Christian Franke <Christian dot Franke at t-online dot de>]

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