Re: dealing with timestamp (in-)accuracy

Lasse Kliemann <[email protected]> wrote:

> In create.c of star-1.5a87, line 281, it reads:
>
>    } else if (dumplevel > 0) {
>       if (info->f_mtime > Newer.tv_sec) {
>          /* EMPTY */
>          ;
>       } else if (info->f_ctime > Newer.tv_sec) {
>          if (dumpmeta)
>             info->f_xftype =3D XT_META;
>       } else {
>          return (FALSE);
>       }
>
> As far as I can see, this is the place where it is decided upon whether a =

> file will be included in the current dump, or if it may be assumed that i=
t is =

> already included in a previous dump (and hence will not be included again=
). I =

> wonder whether the checks shouldn't be for greater *or* *equal*, i.e.:
>
>       if (info->f_mtime >=3D Newer.tv_sec) {
>          /* EMPTY */
>          ;
>       } else if (info->f_ctime >=3D Newer.tv_sec) {

This is not really correct as it could result in duplicate files in success=
ive
incrementals.

Did you actually see missing files in incrementals?

J=F6rg

-- =

 EMail:[email protected] (home) J=F6rg Schilling D-13353 Be=
rlin
       [email protected]                (uni)  =

       [email protected]     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspo=
t.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/sch=
ily