On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:13:01 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>�I realized that, contrary to our patches, these proposed changes�should
>�be independent of `preserve_timestamps'.
Jim,
you're right. However there is more to this problem than that because we have to deal
with two different causes of failure.
Failure 1)
When a new file is created the nanosecond component of the timestamp cannot be set by
cp. This is a quote from cp's code:
> if (x->preserve_timestamps)
> {
> struct utimbuf utb;
>
> /* There's currently no interface to set file timestamps with
> better than 1-second resolution, so discard any fractional
> part of the source timestamp. */
>
> utb.actime = src_sb.st_atime;
> utb.modtime = src_sb.st_mtime;
>
> if (utime (dst_path, &utb))
This means that if we try to do it with --preserve we get a timestamp that is older
than the one of the source file.
Failure 2)
The filesystem might not have a nanosecond time resolution, so we have to properly
identify the supported resolution and the round off method (down or up?)
As there are two different failures there should be two different solutions. For the
first one, not checking the
--
Play Go! http://www.figg.org
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
