This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: questionfor perl maintainer)
- From: "Pierre A. Humblet" <pierre at phumblet dot no-ip dot org>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:42:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: questionfor perl maintainer)
- References: <7231C15EAC2F164CA6DC326D97493C8BA1C3F1@exchange35.fed.cclrc.ac.uk><6.2.1.2.0.20050707140715.03ce4ac0@pop.prospeed.net><20050707182759.GA15923@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <42CD945A.4070607@familiehaase.de><42CD9885.1000605@familiehaase.de> <20050707215018.GB22301@trixie.casa.cgf.cx><42CE4CAB.3000408@familiehaase.de> <20050708122600.GC23354@trixie.casa.cgf.cx><42CE99BF.8000008@familiehaase.de><20050708172755.GG7507@calimero.vinschen.de><20050708173253.GG18981@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
- Reply-to: "Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre dot Humblet at ieee dot org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Cc: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question
for perl maintainer)
> [redirecting to cygwin-apps]
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:27:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 8 17:20, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> >> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >I don't think so but I don't think it will use cygwin's address
anyway.
> >>
> >> Ok. Maybe Corinna should do the same for openssl?
> >
> >What? Why? OpenSSL uses another base address already in the Makefile
> >(0x63000000).
>
> Do we need to coordinate this among all package maintainers, maybe?
> Maybe we could publish a list of all of the dlls in the system along
> with standard base addresses for each and ask that maintainers make
> sure that their DLL complies with the base address.
>
> The more I think about this, the more I believe that we shouldn't have
> to continually tell users to run rebaseall. Setting the base address
> is something that should be done once, by the maintainer, not every
> time a person installs a package.
Amen, but before we setup a centralized database can we evaluate if
--enable-auto-image-base suffices? For example, does it currently lead
to any collision?
Pierre