I'm trying to say that find -newer is affected by the same problem as
this thread, for better or worse:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2008-03/msg00252.html
JY> The -newer test, and find generally, deals only with the information
JY> the OS gives it.
Yes, but then a decision is m
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:13 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oops, pasted wrong. OK:
> $ cd /some_Linux_dir; stat y
> Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:11.0 +0800
>
> $ cp -a y /vfat
> $ umount /vfat; mount /vfat
> $ stat /vfat/y
> Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:10.0 +0800
>
> Anyway, please try
Oops, pasted wrong. OK:
$ cd /some_Linux_dir; stat y
Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:11.0 +0800
$ cp -a y /vfat
$ umount /vfat; mount /vfat
$ stat /vfat/y
Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:10.0 +0800
Anyway, please try
$ cd some_[V]FAT_directory_of_yours
$ stat *|perl -nwe 'print if /(Access|Modif
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:10 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ stat y
> Access: 2008-04-09 11:11:11.0 +0800
> $ cp -a y /vfat
> $ umount /vfat; mount /vfat
> $ stat /vfat/y
> Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:10.0 +0800
This is a little inconsistent; you show the mtime in one example
find -newer will have the same problem on FAT filesystems as cp -u:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2008-04/msg00027.html
$ touch -d 11:11:11 y
$ stat y
Access: 2008-04-09 11:11:11.0 +0800
$ cp -a y /vfat
$ umount /vfat; mount /vfat
$ stat /vfat/y
Modify: 2008-04-09 11:11:10
