Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3D2D9179.1090701@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:08:57 -0400 From: Charles Wilson 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 CC: Robert Collins , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Charles: Fwd: Re: NDBM & ODBM on Cygwin? References: <20020711115244.32605.qmail@web21004.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/