Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3CCAEADB.6D86624D@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 14:15:55 -0400 From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: Earnie Boyd X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Collins CC: Charles Wilson , Gareth Pearce , Cygwin-Apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: ITP: netpbm References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Robert Collins wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] > > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:46 AM > > ... > > But cygwin is used on > > both NTFS and > > FAT... > > Which is the killer question: is adding a directory to the search path > more or less of a performance hog than adding x-100 .exes and/or .dll's > to the /usr/bin directory. And will the inevitable 'my dos script can't > find netpbm foobar tool' questions be worth it? > It be the reason I would want the binaries in /bin. I even remove the /usr/bin from the PATH. Watch how many extra calls to the path methods are generated via an strace output. You really want to avoid extra path walks based on PATH. > Well my system32 directory here has 1971 files. Adding a coupla hundred > optional files doesn't seem all that bad to me. > Not in light of the path walk and path methods. > And hey, if FAT is too slow, folk can always install the windows ext2 > driver. > Or upgrade to XP4HOME, NTFS is the file system. Earnie.