krishnaakishore@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > @Bruke: I don't think that is what he is referring to. The problem was > with preserving timestamps when the copy is being made. > > It has got something to do with struct timespec, struct timeval usage > may be. Just a guess. Here's a thought: could the cp be 32-bit code, and the timestamp struct shown by ls be 64-bit? mark -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
