Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/08/31/10:51:32
In Eli's letter dated Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Eli wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, RJ vd Boon wrote:
>> hmm, I don't think this will help very much, if the user (as I do)
>> points his %TMP% and/or %TEMP% to the ramdrive, or maybe doesn't even
>> set his %TEMP% at all (dos < v7 doesn't set %TEMP% to something, if
>> you don't specify it, right?)
>
>I didn't think this alternative would solve all the cases: that's
>impossible. The questions is: does it solve more cases than the current
>setup?
My guess is, it will not.
exactly because of:
>People who change the setting of their TEMP and TMP generally know what
>they are doing....
so, if they create a Ram-drive (which is pretty useless for people who
don't set TMP/TEMP/TMPDIR), they will set the environment variables
accordingly. They will live happily for a while, until they are going
to untar something big, suddenly they get error messages about
unexpected end of files, but by then they have forgotten about the
readme...
What I mean to say is:
- If you have a ramdrive, you will point TMP/TEMP to it, to get as big a
speed increase as you can get (which invalidates the
[tar]
+TMP=%TEMP%
TMPDIR=%TMP%
solution)
- If you DON'T have a ramdrive, there is no problem at all with your
TMP/TEMP/TMPDIR setting, because you will have enough free space.
I still vote for:
In the preamble [1]
+TMPDIR=%DJDIR%/tmp
and
[tar]
TMPDIR=%DJDIR%/tmp
hth,
Robert.
[1] Can't the preamble be more flexible? I guess putting a little
expansion like bash does, in the code is asking a little too much I
think. I mean something like: +TMPDIR=${%TEMP%:-%DJDIR%/tmp} which
isn't possible (yet;-).
--
rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak ex-Staatsecretaris-
www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | van-onderwijs Netelenbos fel.
- Raw text -