Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Jan Christoph Nordholz
Hi Ben, Doesn't the ctime value from fstat(2) give the time the session was created? That seems like a more useful criterion. all three timestamps are modified by detach/attach. Writing messages to the fifo changes mtime and ctime (the latter being quite strange), receiving changes atime, and

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Ben Finney
On 20-Apr-2008, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: all three timestamps are modified by detach/attach. Writing messages to the fifo changes mtime and ctime (the latter being quite strange), That is strange. Perhaps it warrants another bug report? This bug could then depend on that one. -- \

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Jan Christoph Nordholz
Hi, all three timestamps are modified by detach/attach. Writing messages to the fifo changes mtime and ctime (the latter being quite strange), That is strange. Perhaps it warrants another bug report? This bug could then depend on that one. no, that observation wasn't even related to

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Ben Finney
On 20-Apr-2008, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: no, that observation wasn't even related to screen - I made it when experimenting manually with two bash instances and a fifo. Further investigation shows this is defined behaviour for Unix (and correctly implemented in Linux). Upon successful

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Jan Christoph Nordholz
Hi, Further investigation shows this is defined behaviour for Unix (and correctly implemented in Linux). yes, I suspected that, but couldn't find anything myself - bad google-fu tonight. Thanks for looking it up. So it seem that there is currently no useful file-status time field to order

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-20 Thread Van Zandt, Jim
initial session creation time through /proc/$pid/stat.. That sounds good to me. - Jim Van Zandt -Original Message- From: Jan Christoph Nordholz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 4/19/2008 12:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Van Zandt, Jim Subject: Re: screen: -ls should list

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-19 Thread Jan Christoph Nordholz
Hi, the only timestamp we have is the time of last attachment/detachment (and we can't even tell them apart), and I don't think that sorting by that criterion is incredibly useful... so I'd like to tag this bug 'wontfix' if no-one objects. Regards, Jan signature.asc Description: Digital

Bug#206572: screen: -ls should list sessons sorted chronologically

2008-04-19 Thread Ben Finney
On 19-Apr-2008, Jan Christoph Nordholz wrote: the only timestamp we have is the time of last attachment/detachment (and we can't even tell them apart) Doesn't the ctime value from fstat(2) give the time the session was created? That seems like a more useful criterion. -- \