From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16415 invoked by alias); 11 May 2012 19:49:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 16401 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2012 19:49:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx.binnacle.cx (HELO mx.binnacle.cx) (74.95.187.105) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 19:49:23 +0000 Received: from CIANNAIT.binnacle.cx (ciannait [172.29.87.10]) by mx.binnacle.cx (envelope-from ) (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4BJnLKq006241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 11 May 2012 15:49:21 -0400 Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511153828.05cd2140@binnacle.cx> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 19:49:00 -0000 To: cygwin@cygwin.com, jra@samba.org From: starlight.2012q2@binnacle.cx Subject: Re: CYGWIN inode over Samba share not constructed from IndexNumber In-Reply-To: <20120511175843.GL13090@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20120511125624.05cd1ff8@binnacle.cx> <20120511175843.GL13090@calimero.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: pass (mx.binnacle.cx: 172.29.87.10 is whitelisted by SPF-milter whitelist entry) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg00245.txt.bz2 At 07:58 PM 5/11/2012 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >Which Samba version introduced this behaviour? Don't know. I'm stepping aside on this now. Just reported it since it came up and broke a script we have. I've worked around the inode test by comparing 'sha1sum' values for the files and re-hard-linking the files when the sums differ. I understand this stuff can be tricky, but if it's at all possible it seems reasonable to ask that the behavior of CYGWIN+Samba parallel Linux native behavior w/r/t apparent inode values being the same when actual inode values match. I like the idea that the true inode values be represented by CYGWIN+Samba whenever possible. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple