This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [BUG] NetInstaller leaves bad dates
- From: "David A. Cobb" <superbiskit at cox dot net>
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com, info-lilypond at gnu dot org, XEmacs NT Mailing List<xemacs-winnt at xemacs dot org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:43:56 -0500
- Subject: Re: [BUG] NetInstaller leaves bad dates
- Organization: CoxNet User
- References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AB0F@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
Robert Collins wrote:
>>Please pardon the cross-posting. I'm copying this to
>>everyone known to
>>use the Cygwin Netinstaller.
>>
>The cross-posting is fine, the complete lack of detail - versions,
>filesystem, OS - is not.
>
Ah! Yes.
Win98se (4.10.2222), Fat32fs with multiple PMagic partitions
Cygwin Netinstall 2.125.2.10
Xemacs Netinstall 1.2.2.1.2.7 ( ! Wow ! )
Lillypond Netinstall 2.96.jcn1
With that much variation, I suspect the common point-of-failure may be
Cygwin TAR 1.13.19-1
I think there is a known deficiency because the resolution of FAT32
filesystem timestamps is 2-sec (vice 1-sec or less on a *Nix box) For
XEmacs, that could also be why installed *.el files appear newer than
*.elc files. Ummm - maybe that doesn't make sense either; maybe fixing
the invalid dates causes that secondary problem.
--
David A. Cobb, Software Engineer, Public Access Advocate
"By God's Grace I am a Christian man, by my actions a great sinner." -- The Way of a Pilgrim; R. M. French, tr.
Life is too short to tolerate crappy software.
.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/