X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:03:00 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: volinfo (was: MVFS results) Message-ID: <20090715210300.GD27613@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <1247688838 DOT 5821 DOT 1325242971 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <20090715205129 DOT GB27613 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090715205426 DOT GC16862 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090715205426.GC16862@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Jul 15 16:54, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 10:51:29PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jul 15 20:23, Eric Blake wrote: > >> Charles Wilson cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes: > >> > >> > > >> > Eric Blake wrote: > >> > > Also, volinfo is such a helpful debug utility; should we go ahead and add > >> it to > >> > > the utils directory, and compile it alongside other tools like cygcheck as > >> part > >> > > of the base package? > >> > > >> > It's already in the csih package, under /usr/lib/csih/ but if you want > >> > to "promote" it to src/winsup/ that's fine. When/if that happens, we'll > >> > need to coordinate the release of cygwin-1.7.x-y and the new csih. > >> > >> Oh - that's why I didn't find it - csih renamed it to getVolInfo, and it is not > >> part of the default PATH. > >> > >> And if we DO want to promote it, > > > >Nah. It's ok as a herlper tool, but it's not worth to be put into > >winsup/utils. Maybe as part of cygcheck, but even if so, not now. > > Yeah, I was going to say that it should go into cygcheck myself. > > Hmm. I wonder if cygcheck should be a standalone utility so that we can > update it without needing to update the DLL. We could split out a cygwin-utils package at one point. But it's nothing I'd consider for 1.7.1. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple