Hi, * David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Colin Marquardt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> apparently diff caches stuff in memory. > I'm not sure what you mean by "made a new clean version". > (I'm sure you know that -N means any empty files that were > cleaned away will have no effect on diff's output.) Okay, I haven´t been too understandable. Now I cannot reproduce it, but the explanation what I did follows nevertheless. Say, I want to do a diff against a directory that comes in a tarball (xmms-0.9.5.1.tar.gz actually). I edit some files in a copy of that directory (xmms-0.9.5.1_patch), then I diff against the original directory (xmms-0.9.5.1, clean_dir in my previous example). I then realize that was I thought was the original wasn´t really the directory as contained in the tarball because I did some modifications there too. Now, to get a clean original directory (xmms-0.9.5.1) I simply untar the tarball again (after deleting the fake original directory), which gives me the same directory name as before (xmms-0.9.5.1). Okay? The original directory is now *really* original, i.e. *different* from the former original (which was called xmms-0.9.5.1 as well), so I should get also get a different diff output. Now my second diff doesn´t recognize that the original directory has changed, it creates the same diff output as before. > I didn't know diff bothered about timestamps, and I doubt kernel > caching uses them either. (Of course, programs like tar and zip do.) Okay, after some experiments I see that after untarring the original directory anew, the timestamp on that directory is not the current timestamp, but the timestamp at tar file creation. (tar xvzf xmms-0.9.5.1.tar.gz) > So, were I examining evidence, I'd be interested to know how you > cleaned clean_dir, and I'd want to see a log showing diff getting > the wrong answers (i.e. the diff output and two cats of affected > files). The test case I just set up worked! I don´t know what was different... Maybe the error really was between keyboard and chair, and I´ve now gotten the brown paper bag award :-( I don´t know. Thanks for taking the time to answer, Colin -- | Re: Kernel size is 666K! I kid you not! | by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 26, @08:50AM | I came home from a Barry Manilow concert once and had 666 burned into | my forehead! I shit you not! [Kernel 2.2.0 is announced on /.]
