Re: ctime: creation or change time?

[Eric Melski <spam at melski dot net>]

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/