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/
