On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:50:38PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:24:20PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > >But what was wrong with my idea of making rebaseall a #!/bin/ash > >script? > > You still couldn't run the script from bash since the dlls would still > be loaded. That would mean that you'd have to do something like: > > c:\>ash rebaseall > > (Currently rebaseall won't work as an ash script but the fix is > trivial) > > I guess that's better than nothing but I still think that just not > rebasing the bash dlls is going to result in fewer mailing list > complaints.
My inclination is to convert rebaseall to an ash script. > OTOH, if we had some coordination between the maintainers of DLLs in > the distribution we could reduce the need for rebase a lot. I don't > know if using --enable-auto-image-base would fix every problem but I > suspect that it might help. It will, but I have empirical evidence that DLLs need to be rebased with some padding between them to guarantee that fork() does not fail. Jason -- PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D 8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6 -- 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/
