Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-23 Thread Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:37:08PM +0200, Angelo Graziosi wrote: > > > With the snap 20051019 13:12:47 the command 'cp -p' of coreutils 5.90-3 > works fine. > > > A curiosit. > > The recent snapshots contain also mingw-runtime and w32api: is there a > special reason for this? Um, they changed

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-20 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 20 06:17, Eric Blake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Corinna Vinschen on 10/19/2005 11:11 AM: > >>utimes(dest,...); // at this point, timestamp is correct > >>fchmod(dest_desc,...); > >>close(dest_desc); // oops, timestamp changed > > > > > > Ap

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-20 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > > It's not POSIX! > > But I must admit that it exists on Linux, even though they didn't bother > to create a man page for it. > Corinna, I think I win the bet, right? > Ooh, having fun on the closed -developers list at my expense, are we? ;) At l

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-20 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 06:17:17AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA1 > >According to Corinna Vinschen on 10/19/2005 11:11 AM: >>>utimes(dest,...); // at this point, timestamp is correct >>>fchmod(dest_desc,...); >>>close(dest_desc); // oops, timestamp change

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-20 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 20 06:17, Eric Blake wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > According to Corinna Vinschen on 10/19/2005 11:11 AM: > >>utimes(dest,...); // at this point, timestamp is correct > >>fchmod(dest_desc,...); > >>close(dest_desc); // oops, timestamp changed > > > > > > Ap

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-20 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Corinna Vinschen on 10/19/2005 11:11 AM: >>utimes(dest,...); // at this point, timestamp is correct >>fchmod(dest_desc,...); >>close(dest_desc); // oops, timestamp changed > > > Apparently NT overwrites the mtime timestamp on close, as

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-19 Thread Angelo Graziosi
With the snap 20051019 13:12:47 the command 'cp -p' of coreutils 5.90-3 works fine. A curiosit. The recent snapshots contain also mingw-runtime and w32api: is there a special reason for this? Thanks, angelo. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem r

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-19 Thread Corinna Vinschen
On Oct 19 14:23, Eric Blake wrote: > Angelo Graziosi roma1.infn.it> writes: > > > 1) > > Using coreutils-5.90-3 I have observed that the command 'cp -p' does not > > preserve the timestamp of a file: > > > > $ ls -lrt > > -rw-r--r-- 1 Administrator Administrators418 Aug 7 18:55 t.c > > >

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-19 Thread Eric Blake
Angelo Graziosi roma1.infn.it> writes: > 1) > Using coreutils-5.90-3 I have observed that the command 'cp -p' does not > preserve the timestamp of a file: > > $ ls -lrt > -rw-r--r-- 1 Administrator Administrators418 Aug 7 18:55 t.c > > $ cp -p t.c t.cpp > $ ls -lrt > -rw-r--r-- 1 Administ

Re: please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-18 Thread Eric Blake
> 1) > Using coreutils-5.90-3 I have observed that the command 'cp -p' does not > preserve the timestamp of a file: > > $ ls -lrt > -rw-r--r-- 1 Administrator Administrators418 Aug 7 18:55 t.c > > $ cp -p t.c t.cpp > $ ls -lrt > -rw-r--r-- 1 Administrator Administrators418 Aug 7 18:55

please test: coreutils-5.90-3

2005-10-15 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> I've uploaded a test version of coreutils, 5.90-1. This is a new, >> unstable upstream release, with a number of changes from 5.3.0. In >> particular, quite a few changes have been made upstream in regards >> to text vs. binary mode, so some fe