Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/09/05/15:02:39
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:44:31AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> Would you be willing to make the status check portion of cygcheck -c
>> optional (i.e., another option)? The latest version is very expensive:
>>
>> $ # 1.5.3 on P4 2.4 GHz
>> $ time cygcheck -c >/dev/null
>>
>> real 1m49.646s
>> user 0m0.010s
>> sys 0m0.020s
>>
>> $ # 1.3.22 on P3 500 MHz
>> $ time cygcheck -c >/dev/null
>>
>> real 0m0.042s
>> user 0m0.010s
>> sys 0m0.020s
>
>What CGF said. I assume since cygcheck can also be used to find out the
>version of one installed package at a time, it might be a good idea to add
>another flag. However, I'd suggest restructuring the flags while we're at
>it, i.e., only print package info if "-c" is specified (just like registry
>info is only printed if "-r" is set). Add a "-e" option that prints
>environment; "-n" that checks security stuff (runs "id", checks
>/etc/passwd and /etc/group, and so on), and "-i" that checks package
>integrity (only valid with "-c"). Then the "-s" flag will only print the
>versions of DLLs and the programs found (and the mounts). Problem reports
>will then have to include the output of "cygcheck -scnver", but, IMO, this
>is worth the fine-grained control over what's printed by cygcheck.
>Opinions?
This is specifically what I was trying to avoid. The current behavior is
now encoded in the DNA of the cygwin community. If we change things so
that -rsv doesn't do the "right" thing anymore, we'll be foreever asking
people to do '-scnver'.
I realize that 'cygcheck -c' is not precisely equivalent to 'rpm -q' but
'cygcheck -c' was never intended to be an exact replacement for 'rpm -q'.
If the only concern is that cygcheck takes a long time, now, then, like
I said, that is something that can be rectified.
--
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 -