I wrote:
> An increasing number of executables on that box are sporting ever
> newer mtimes. This appears to have been going on ever since the
> Jul 25 update. There is no clear pattern which executables are
> touched. md5 comparisons with previous backup levels (using a Jul 13
> copy of md5)
On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, David Greenman wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 06:28:59PM +, Christian Weisgerber ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
> >Probably the recent change (IIRC) that someone turned running an
> >executable into a mtime change.
>
>There was no such change. I proposed a change that
-CURRENT (Jul 25), alpha.
An increasing number of executables on that box are sporting ever
newer mtimes. This appears to have been going on ever since the
Jul 25 update. There is no clear pattern which executables are
touched. md5 comparisons with previous backup levels (using a Jul 13
copy o
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probably the recent change (IIRC) that someone turned running an
> executable into a mtime change.
Which change is that?
/assar
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 03:38:08PM -0700, David Greenman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>There was no such change. I proposed a change that would update the atime,
> but that was not committed because it has some bad side effects.
That's what I'm remembering.. sorry, and thanks.
--
wca
To Unsu
Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Probably the recent change (IIRC) that someone turned running an
> executable into a mtime change.
That was about _atime_ and the discussion was still going on after
I last updated the box. Besides, I verified that simply running
an executable does not
On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 06:28:59PM +, Christian Weisgerber ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> An increasing number of executables on that box are sporting ever
> newer mtimes. This appears to have been going on ever since the
> Jul 25 update. There is no clear pattern which executables are
> touc
>On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 06:28:59PM +, Christian Weisgerber ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>wrote:
>> An increasing number of executables on that box are sporting ever
>> newer mtimes. This appears to have been going on ever since the
>> Jul 25 update. There is no clear pattern which executables are
>
