This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: ITP: netpbm
- From: Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd at yahoo dot com>
- To: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Cc: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>, Gareth Pearce <tilps at hotmail dot com>, Cygwin-Apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:15:55 -0400
- Subject: Re: ITP: netpbm
- References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5F31@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
- Reply-to: Earnie Boyd <Cygwin-Apps at Cygwin dot Com>
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM
>
> ...
> > But cygwin is used on
> > both NTFS and
> > FAT...
>
> Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path
> more or less of a performance hog than adding x-100 .exes and/or .dll's
> to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't
> find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it?
>
It be the reason I would want the binaries in /bin. I even remove the
/usr/bin from the PATH. Watch how many extra calls to the path methods
are generated via an strace output. You really want to avoid extra path
walks based on PATH.
> Well my system32 directory here has 1971 files. Adding a coupla hundred
> optional files doesn't seem all that bad to me.
>
Not in light of the path walk and path methods.
> And hey, if FAT is too slow, folk can always install the windows ext2
> driver.
>
Or upgrade to XP4HOME, NTFS is the file system.
Earnie.