[ITP] rebase

[Max Bowsher]

Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:13:52PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>>>> Should this rebase maybe be a Cygwin, not MinGW version?  (So that
>>>> we can use POSIX paths with it?)
>>>
>>> My very first version was a Cygwin app.  I converted it to Mingw
>>> when Chuck pointed out imagehlp.dll is dependent on msvcrt.dll.
>>> Now that I'm using Ralf's imagehelper library we have a choice
>>> (unless rebasing cygwin1.dll is a requirement).  Although, I waffle
>>> on the Cygwin vs.  Mingw issues, I'm leaning toward Mingw.
>>
>> The only reason I can think of to make it a cygwin app (and I think
>> it is a powerful one) is for the path issues.  If someone wants to
>> rebase cygwin, maybe the README could tell them how to do that,
>> e.g., make a copy, rebase that, use Windows tools to copy the
>> rebased DLL back to cygwin1.dll.
>
> What is the consensus on Cygwin vs. Mingw?  We already have 2.75 votes
> for Cygwin. :,)  I won't mind replacing getopt() with popt anyway.

Problem: If it was Cygwin, it couldn't use any other Cygwin dll - like
cygpopt-0.dll (it might need to rebase them).
It's somewhat an unanswered question whether rebasing cygwin1.dll is
necessary/useful/harmful.

IMO, we already have strace & cygcheck that don't do Cygwin paths. It might
be better to get rebase in as is, and think about this as a possible long
term enhancement (you know, that lightweight path translation library
mentioned as a possibility in the setup TODO).

As to cygwin1.dll: It's given a specific base address by .def file. Changing
it should be unnecessary, even if it is not a problem.


Max.