Le ven. 8 févr. 2019 à 09:55, Travis Everett <travis.a.ever...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I wonder if you could just use rsync (without timestamp checking) for > this? If your: > > - documentation set isn't so large that temporarily having a second > set causes problems > - configuration is such that output stays the same until your source > or Doxygen versions change > > You could keep the real/stable output copy in one location, generate a > temporary copy into a separate location, then rsync without timestamp > checking (may need to use checksum mode?) > I'm a big fan of rsync and I considered it. In fact one of the function in my python script is called "rsync" :-) However I don't think it can do this particular timestamp restoration job, I mean not unless you invoked it once per file but by then you wrote as much code. Rsync can create an initial "shadow"/backup copy from the first build just fine. What I don't think rsync can do is take a completely different action depending on whether the file content has changed or not, *on a per file basis.* IF the file content has changed THEN copy data *and* timestamp TO the backup ELSE IF the file content hasn't changed THEN copy the old timestamp FROM the backup = in the *opposite* direction! So opposite directions means two separate rsync invocations: can you run these two rsync operations one after the other without one breaking the other? Taking into account new files showing up and obsolete files disappearing? Another portability issue: for some unknown reasons rsync seems also to be an undesired dependency for many Windows users, robocopy seems more popular. Maybe robocopy supports some NTFS features better? Cheers, Marc
_______________________________________________ Doxygen-users mailing list Doxygen-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-users
