Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/06/05/14:30:41
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
>>>> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't
posted
>>>> the test program, because it is too messy.
>>>> [...]
>>>> I give proof that dll/exe files are being created sparse above.
>>>
>>> Uhm...
>>
>> I like to think that I'm sufficiently trustworthy not to lie about a
clear
>> yes/no fact.
>
> If you can't back up your conclusions with actual code why should we
> assume that you are infallible? No one is that trustworthy.
I assumed you would trust someone telling you whether the read-only
attribute of a file was set, without needing to see further evidence? To me,
this is an equivalent situation.
>> Personally I think "Don't risk anything if there is no potential gain" is
>> reasonably persuasive.
>
> Lets use the popular reasoning here. If there was no potential gain
> then Microsoft would not have provided the option, would they? Since
> they did there has to be *some* potential gain.
But their option isn't on by default. So, presumably, there must be some
circumstances when it is undesirable.
> Thanks for not mentioning that you think a CYGWIN environment variable
> option is the way to go for this. I guess we're making minor progress
> now.
I would still like some mechanism to force sparse file creation off, but
since that seems unlikely to happen, I guess I will try to think of a way to
improve the heuristic for deciding whether to make files sparse.
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -