Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-03 Thread Eric Blake
jidanni.org> writes: > JM> Don't blame Linux > JM> This is due to the FAT specification. > Different filesystems have different time granularities. Why draw an > artificial line above one second just because it is unfamiliar? FAT is not a POSIX-compliant file system. POSIX requires file syste

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-02 Thread jidanni
All I know is your program is guilty of conspiracy to wear out people's USB flash cards. If FAT is detected, just run source and destination times thru a chopper like $ m=$(date +%s); echo -n $m--\>; expr $m / 2 \* 2 1207175575-->1207175574 and cp -u will never blow it again, innocent of any futur

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-02 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > JM> - document a subtle limitation encountered when using a losing file > system > It's the Lingua Franca of USB filesystem where I live. > > You change your comparison from > Modify: 2008-04-03 05:45:22.7 > to one second buckets > Modify: 2008-04-03 05:45:22

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-02 Thread jidanni
JM> - document a subtle limitation encountered when using a losing file system It's the Lingua Franca of USB filesystem where I live. You change your comparison from Modify: 2008-04-03 05:45:22.7 to one second buckets Modify: 2008-04-03 05:45:22 so it should be just as easy to add a two

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-02 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > JM> It'd be great if you would suggest wording to document this discrepancy. > > The wording is fine as is. > The problem is that you don't act according to your wording. > > You think "truncate fractional seconds, using one-second buckets to compare", > whereas you need

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-02 Thread jidanni
JM> It'd be great if you would suggest wording to document this discrepancy. The wording is fine as is. The problem is that you don't act according to your wording. You think "truncate fractional seconds, using one-second buckets to compare", whereas you need to use two-second buckets to compare

Re: cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-04-01 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bad news fellows, regarding: > > `-u' > `--update' > Do not copy a non-directory that has an existing destination with > the same or newer modification time. If time stamps are being > preserved, the comparison is to the source time stamp truncate

cp -u vs. vfat's TWO seconds

2008-03-31 Thread jidanni
Bad news fellows, regarding: `-u' `--update' Do not copy a non-directory that has an existing destination with the same or newer modification time. If time stamps are being preserved, the comparison is to the source time stamp truncated to the resolutions of the destin