On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> first off, please do not top-post. Thank you. top-posting? Had no idea what that was at first. You prefer that retorts follow quotes. No problem. > And there is little point in > complaining about 1.5.x speed without even trying out 2.2.6. I agree. However, I am not complaining about speed. I am eagerly awaiting more sources to transition from older libtool to newer libtool. I wish that would go faster. Okay, maybe I am complaining about speed. :) > I'm not sure what your discussion is supposed to lead to. Nearly the entire point of my previous emails was to specify that although dash is a faster shell for some uses if libtool was made to run under dash then libtool might not run as fast. I wanted to spare the eager dash fans from allocating the time and effort to port libtool to dash if the outcome would become incommensurate with expectations. I entered the conversation, merely because I did some various speed tests with dash to discover where dash might be a better choice than bash. If I did not have that data then I would not have replied. Consequently, my message is not so much about libtool as it is about what dash might be good for. dash is a good choice for running small quick scripts. However, I do not want to fuel an unrelated thread about dash on the libtool email list. But someone had a good thought to wonder and express the idea about whether libtool performance could be improved by using dash as an interpreter. Thanks for libtool and making it better. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
