[ITP] rebase

Nicholas Wourms nwourms@netscape.net
Mon Jan 27 19:36:00 GMT 2003

maxb@ukf.net wrote:
> 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).

Umm...  couldn't you just link statically to libpopt.a?


[Yes, the new popt will be out soon, have patience =)]

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list