Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3D2D9179.1090701@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:08:57 -0400
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language:	en-us
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Nicholas Wourms <nwourms AT yahoo DOT com>
CC:	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT syncretize DOT net>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Charles: Fwd: Re: NDBM & ODBM on Cygwin?
References:	<20020711115244 DOT 32605 DOT qmail AT web21004 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>

Nicholas Wourms wrote:

 
> P.S. - Before you say so, I am aware of the limitations of the FAT
> filesystem.  All I'm saying is that there is always a solution to a
> problem. 



But there's no guarantee that the solution is
   a) within your budget
   b) can be accomplished within a finite time period
   c) is worth the effort.
All of this takes time -- time that could be better used in other areas. 
  I'm not interested in getting that particular subset of gdbm working 
on FAT -- I've looked into it, and IMO the effort and time involved is 
huge; the opportunity cost (in the macroeconomic sense) is too great.

That's why cvs has the hacks that it does; it was more efficient to fix 
the FAT drive problem there, rather than in gdbm.

--Chuck



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -