Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Jim Fehrle]

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:34:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe
Achim Gratz writes:

> You didn't tell us how exactly you downloaded the file.  If you
> donwloaded it onto an already existing file (overwriting it), it may
> have kept the old timestamp depending on what software you used and what
> timestamp you look at.  So use a fresh directory or move the old file
> away first and see if that's helping.

Chrome renames a downloaded file if there is already a downloaded file with
the same name,
e.g. to "setup-x86_64.exe (1)".  When I tried it again now, the filestamp
showed the time it was downloaded.  Unless I see the incorrect timestamp
behavior again, it's easily reproducible and can clearly be attributed to
Cygwin, I think there's nothing to change in Cygwin.

Thanks to all,

Jim

--
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

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Achim Gratz]

Jim Fehrle writes:
> The file length matches exactly.

Then check the signature as well if you're still unsure.

> I downloaded by clicking the link at https://cygwin.com/.  No idea about a
> proxy server.  Is that something an ISP might set up?  I'm working from my
> home, not an office.  Not work-related.

You didn't tell us how exactly you downloaded the file.  If you
donwloaded it onto an already existing file (overwriting it), it may
have kept the old timestamp depending on what software you used and what
timestamp you look at.  So use a fresh directory or move the old file
away first and see if that's helping.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables

--
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

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Brian Inglis]

On 2019-03-18 22:38, Mark Geisert wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 01:55:36 -0700, Jim Fehrle wrote:
>> Mark Geisert wrote:
>>> Here are mine:
>>> /c/staging ls -l Cygwin??/setup*.exe
>>> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1171475 Dec 20 01:18 Cygwin32/setup-x86.exe*
>>> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1224211 Dec 20 01:17 Cygwin64/setup-x86_64.exe*
>>> Check the size of your v2.895 against the last line above. If it's 
>>> different, you may not have the recent version you think.  I don't want
>>> to speculate why.
>>> How did you download?  Is there a proxy cache in the way?
>> The file length matches exactly.
>> I downloaded by clicking the link at https://cygwin.com/.  No idea about a
>> proxy server.  Is that something an ISP might set up?  I'm working from my
>> home, not an office.  Not work-related.
> Well, having the file size match means you've probably got the latest
> setup-x86_64.exe.  That argues against a proxy cache being in the way.
> FWIW the times shown for my files are the times I downloaded them from the
> Cygwin website, same way you did.  So I can't reproduce what you're seeing.
> I'm out of ideas.  Sorry :-).

With what utilities and options were the files uploaded and downloaded?
Probably depends on the sourceware.org network file server metadata which seems
consistently wacky: Cygwin time machine using Julian month Dec==10?
Possibly from building over test V2.894 on your machine then uploading via lftp
or alternatives.

$ stat mirror/x86_64/setup-x86_64.exe
  File: mirror/x86_64/setup-x86_64.exe
  Size: 1224211         Blocks: 1196       IO Block: 65536  regular file
Device: 6b8d438h/112776248d     Inode: 17451448557505386  Links: 1
Access: (0755/-rwxr-xr-x)  Uid: (uuuuuu/   $USER)   Gid: (  545/   Users)
Access: 2018-12-17 17:56:40.000000000 -0700
Modify: 2018-10-21 10:02:14.000000000 -0600
Change: 2018-12-17 17:56:40.925576800 -0700
 Birth: 2017-12-19 23:10:28.037705900 -0700
$ wget -N -P /tmp/ https://cygwin.com/setup-x86_64.exe{,.sig}
$ stat /tmp/setup-x86_64.exe{,.sig}
  File: /tmp/setup-x86_64.exe
  Size: 1224211         Blocks: 1196       IO Block: 65536  regular file
Device: 6b8d438h/112776248d     Inode: 25614222881940454  Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: (uuuuuu/   $USER)   Gid: (  545/   Users)
Access: 2019-03-18 22:53:38.000000000 -0600
Modify: 2018-10-21 10:02:14.000000000 -0600
Change: 2019-03-18 22:53:38.784884100 -0600
 Birth: 2019-03-18 22:53:36.878740000 -0600
  File: /tmp/setup-x86_64.exe.sig
  Size: 72              Blocks: 1          IO Block: 65536  regular file
Device: 6b8d438h/112776248d     Inode: 52354345669496533  Links: 1
Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--)  Uid: (uuuuuu/   $USER)   Gid: (  545/   Users)
Access: 2019-03-18 22:53:38.000000000 -0600
Modify: 2018-10-21 10:02:34.000000000 -0600
Change: 2019-03-18 22:53:38.878670500 -0600
 Birth: 2019-03-18 22:53:38.862994200 -0600

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains
too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised.

--
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

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Mark Geisert]

Jim Fehrle wrote:
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 01:55:36 -0700
> Subject: Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe
> Mark Geisert wrote:
>
>> Here are mine:
>> /c/staging ls -l Cygwin??/setup*.exe
>> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1171475 Dec 20 01:18 Cygwin32/setup-x86.exe*
>> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1224211 Dec 20 01:17 Cygwin64/setup-x86_64.exe*
>
>> Check the size of your v2.895 against the last line above.  If it's
> different,
>> you may not have the recent version you think.  I don't want to speculate
> why.
>
>> How did you download?  Is there a proxy cache in the way?
>
> The file length matches exactly.
>
> I downloaded by clicking the link at https://cygwin.com/.  No idea about a
> proxy server.  Is that something an ISP might set up?  I'm working from my
> home, not an office.  Not work-related.

Well, having the file size match means you've probably got the latest 
setup-x86_64.exe.  That argues against a proxy cache being in the way.

FWIW the times shown for my files are the times I downloaded them from the 
Cygwin website, same way you did.  So I can't reproduce what you're seeing.

I'm out of ideas.  Sorry :-).

..mark


--
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

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Jim Fehrle]

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 01:55:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe
Mark Geisert wrote:

> Here are mine:
> /c/staging ls -l Cygwin??/setup*.exe
> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1171475 Dec 20 01:18 Cygwin32/setup-x86.exe*
> -rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1224211 Dec 20 01:17 Cygwin64/setup-x86_64.exe*

> Check the size of your v2.895 against the last line above.  If it's
different,
> you may not have the recent version you think.  I don't want to speculate
why.

> How did you download?  Is there a proxy cache in the way?

The file length matches exactly.

I downloaded by clicking the link at https://cygwin.com/.  No idea about a
proxy server.  Is that something an ISP might set up?  I'm working from my
home, not an office.  Not work-related.

Jim

--
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

Re: Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Mark Geisert]

Jim Fehrle wrote:
> I downloaded two copies of setup-x86_64.exe, one a year or more
> ago (v2.882) and one today (v2.895).  Both of them have timestamps in my
> filesystem of 11/27/2017, which I expect is being copied from the server I
> downloaded from.
>
> It would be helpful if these timestamps reflected when those versions were
> created by Cygwin.  It would give you an idea how old or new your version
> is.

Here are mine:
/c/staging ls -l Cygwin??/setup*.exe
-rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1171475 Dec 20 01:18 Cygwin32/setup-x86.exe*
-rwxrwxr-x+ 1 Mark None 1224211 Dec 20 01:17 Cygwin64/setup-x86_64.exe*

Check the size of your v2.895 against the last line above.  If it's different, 
you may not have the recent version you think.  I don't want to speculate why.

How did you download?  Is there a proxy cache in the way?

..mark


--
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

Misleading timestamps on setup-x86_64.exe

[Jim Fehrle]

I downloaded two copies of setup-x86_64.exe, one a year or more
ago (v2.882) and one today (v2.895).  Both of them have timestamps in my
filesystem of 11/27/2017, which I expect is being copied from the server I
downloaded from.

It would be helpful if these timestamps reflected when those versions were
created by Cygwin.  It would give you an idea how old or new your version
is.

Thanks,

Jim

--
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