Jason Tishler wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:07:43PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Jason Tishler wrote: >>> 2. non-persistent: rebase DLLs ignoring setup.exe's rebase database >>> (which is essentially today's, MS-like functionality) >> >> "non-persistent" seems to imply that the effects get cancelled out by >> a reboot. Is this really the case? > > No, once a DLL is rebased it stays that way until it is rebased again > regardless of reboots.
Thought so. > By "non-persistent," I mean that once a set of DLLs are rebased the > knowledge (i.e., persistence) of their base addresses is lost. Hence, > if you want to rebase a new DLLs, then one must rebase *all* DLLs > again to guarantee that no DLL base address conflicts will occur. > > If setup.exe or rebase.exe persists this information in a convenient > form, then the user can rebase incrementally without having to rebase > all the DLLs over and over again. > >> If not, can we discuss a more self-explanatory name for this? > > Sure. Can you suggest a better name for this concept? Hmm. Standalone / Database ? That's still not wonderful. Maybe I'll think of a better name. > I hope that using the term "non-persistent" does not delay the voting > process... Definitely not. I vote "pro" regardless of what name we choose. Max.