On Mar 9 19:08, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> I think I checked how Cygwin implements fork() a while ago, can't really
> remember though. But on a fork(), do processes inherit all information
> on dll's, et cetera? Or do they reload the dll and re-check the
> addresses of entry points and all?
Very
Christopher Faylor schreef:
Right. And that has been the main reason why writing an installer which
uses Cygwin is problematic.
I've been using the "rename the dll or executable" technique for about ten
years to install a newly-compiled version of cygwin1.dll on a system with
a running version
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:21:52AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 9 09:55, Andy Koppe wrote:
>> Spiro Trikaliotis:
>> > You can replace a running exe (or dll) by doing the following:
>> >
>> > 1. rename the .DLL or .EXE
>>
>> Are you sure that's possible? I'd expect Windows to complain lo
On Mar 9 10:18, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> --- Lun 9/3/09, Andy Koppe ha scritto:
> > Are you sure that's possible? I'd expect Windows to
> > complain loudly at
> > that point.
> > [...]
> I also used that trick to replace cyglsa.dll installing
> snapshots but cyglsa.dll was not in use at that time.
I
On Mar 9 09:55, Andy Koppe wrote:
> Spiro Trikaliotis:
> > You can replace a running exe (or dll) by doing the following:
> >
> > 1. rename the .DLL or .EXE
>
> Are you sure that's possible? I'd expect Windows to complain loudly at
> that point.
You can in theory, but that won't work reliably fo
--- Lun 9/3/09, Andy Koppe ha scritto:
> Da: Andy Koppe
> Oggetto: Re: Replacing setup.exe and cygcheck with dpkg (Was: Re: cygcheck
> typo in both manpage and --help)
> A: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Data: Lunedì 9 marzo 2009, 10:55
> Spiro Trikaliotis:
> > You can replace a
Spiro Trikaliotis:
> You can replace a running exe (or dll) by doing the following:
>
> 1. rename the .DLL or .EXE
Are you sure that's possible? I'd expect Windows to complain loudly at
that point.
Andy
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: htt
Hello,
* On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:45:39PM -0400 Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> > (Since 1.7 already fixes the problem of installing running programs,
>
> Color me dubious. How did you solve the problem of installing cygwin over
> a r
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Sjors Gielen wrote:
> Christopher Faylor schreef:
>>> setup.exe and cygcheck are very nice but was wondering if the idea of
>>> using
>>> yum and rpm was ever tossed around?
>> Yes, it has been discussed many times. There are big barriers to
>> getting th
Christopher Faylor schreef:
setup.exe and cygcheck are very nice but was wondering if the idea of using
yum and rpm was ever tossed around?
Yes, it has been discussed many times. There are big barriers to
getting these working, mainly due to problems installing already-running
programs.
cgf
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 05:10:01PM -0400, Dat Head wrote:
>-p option says "requies" instead of "requires"
This is fixed in CVS. Thanks for the heads up.
>setup.exe and cygcheck are very nice but was wondering if the idea of using
>yum and rpm was ever tossed around?
Yes, it has been discussed m
-p option says "requies" instead of "requires"
setup.exe and cygcheck are very nice but was wondering if the idea of using
yum and rpm was ever tossed around? i guess they would need too much
twiddling to work.
cygcheck is 1.90.4.1 version
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubsc
12 matches
Mail list logo
