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
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 13:42:28 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Sparse file criteria malfunction - binutils produces sparse .exe & .dll files
Message-ID: <20030605174228.GF11499@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <bbl3cu$ph4$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKKELPEDAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <20030605160847 DOT GZ875 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <006901c32b7f$0d7cceb0$78d96f83 AT pomello> <20030605164123 DOT GB875 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <00c701c32b84$6632f980$78d96f83 AT pomello>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00c701c32b84$6632f980$78d96f83@pomello>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

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.

There has been very little actual data provided here beyond the "It must
be bad because Microsoft doesn't turn it on by default" argument.  Since
Cygwin uses all sorts of things that Microsoft doesn't turn on by default,
I assume that, by extension, most of cygwin is really bad.

>But, fine, I've attached my messy code.

Thank you.

>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.

>>We're now on the path of opinion.  My opinion is to drop 9x/Me support
>>entirely from Cygwin since it just requires ugly hacks in the code.
>>But that's not actually an argument to do it in reality.
>
>Well, keeping 9x/Me support gains 9x/Me users a lot.  What does
>sparseness-on-by-default gain users?  If anything, I don't see it.

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.

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/