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 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 00:30:21 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive Message-ID: <20030907043021.GA22644@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20030905124047.GD1852@tishler.net> <20030905190127.GB4483@redhat.com> <20030906004249.GO1852@tishler.net> <20030907042805.GA22596@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030907042805.GA22596@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:28:05AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:42:49PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >>On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:01:27PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> If the only concern is that cygcheck takes a long time, now, then, >>> like I said, that is something that can be rectified. >> >>Yes, the above is my real concern. > >I just hacked cygcheck to avoid calling gzip and use a mingw libz.a >(courtesy of Chuck Wilson) and it takes 26 seconds to complete on my >dual PIII 733MHZ WinXP system. I have most packages installed. > >Is that still too slow? I should add that the previous version took 1 minute, 9 seconds. cgf -- 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/