Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-09 Thread Jason Tishler
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 05:05:22PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:32:04PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > >I see a minor speed up (now) -- 1:24 versus 1:18. Note this is on my > >laptop. Maybe the disk subsystem is so slow as to dominate the > >throughput? > > In tha

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-08 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 04:32:04PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >Chris, > >On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:36:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:50:16AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >> >BTW, I tried to give cygcheck from the 2003-Sep-08 snapshot a ride. >> >The ChangeLog a

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-08 Thread Jason Tishler
Chris, On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:36:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:50:16AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > >BTW, I tried to give cygcheck from the 2003-Sep-08 snapshot a ride. > >The ChangeLog and diff seem to indicate the required changes have > >been completed.

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-08 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 07:50:16AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >Chris, > >On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:30:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> 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

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-08 Thread Jason Tishler
Chris, On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 12:30:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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 on

RE: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-07 Thread Hannu E K Nevalainen \(garbage mail\)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Christopher Faylor > >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, > >>

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
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 s

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-06 Thread Christopher Faylor
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

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Jason Tishler
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. Jason -- PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or ke

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Wes Szumera
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:40:47AM -0400, 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: > > > A 1200 mhz athelon with just about all the cygwin stuff (some x omited )

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Wes Szumera
Date sent: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:07:29 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
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 >> $

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Jason Tishler
Igor, On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:44:31AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > 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? The above sounds good to me. Thanks, Jason --

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Jason Tishler
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:07:29AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:40:47AM -0400, 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: > > > >[snip] > >

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Jason Tishler wrote: > Igor, > > 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 > > real1m49.646s > us

Re: latest cygcheck -c is expensive

2003-09-05 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:40:47AM -0400, 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 > >real1m49.646s >