Re: rebaseall info out of date

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 03:01:02PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>This paragraph in the rebase package README:
>
>> Note that rebaseall is only a stop-gap measure.  Eventually the rebase
>> functionality will be added to Cygwin's setup.exe, so that rebasing will
>> happen automatically.
>
>...should be rewritten.  I propose: "You should not need to run 
>rebaseall by hand.  setup.exe has done so automatically at the end of 
>each installation since Mumble 2012."  (May?  April?)
>
>A similar thing is going on in FAQ item 4.44.  I think that FAQ item 
>should be split in two, with all the rebasing related stuff answering a 
>new FAQ item, "Why does Cygwin need rebasing?", refocused on talking 
>about what setup.exe/rebaseall now does automatically and why.  FAQ item 
>4.44 will then talk about the remaining reasons fork() can fail, and 
>their possible fixes.
>
>And while I'm proposing work for other people :) is there a better 
>reason program usage info is in the README instead of man pages, besides 
>lack of time or interest?  In trying to answer the question "Why do we 
>need rebasing?" for myself, I first tried "man rebase".  (Yes, I did 
>eventually answer the question to my satisfaction.)

That might be an interesting question to ask in the Cygwin mailing list.
We don't deal with rebase packaging here.

Since none of the rest of this message contains an actual patch it is
also off-topic.  If you'd like to provide a patch for the FAQ then we'd
gratefully accept it.  Otherwise, please take "it would be nice" musings
to the main list.

cgf