On Aug 12 14:36, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:53:47PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Aug 12 12:56, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:13:22PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > >>>I'd just suggest on by default and remembers its state between runs. > >> > >>Ditto. > > > >That's fine, but let's remember the original questions. > > > >- *Shall* setup call rebaseall at all? > > > >- If yes, hardcoded or as postinstall script? > > > >As a sidenote, if by postinstall script, there's no way to influence it > >with a checkbox. In theory I'd rather see a postinstall script since > >that's a more flexible way to do the right thing. > > Don't we still have sporadic reports of rebaseall "breaking" things? I > think it was libncurses* that had problems. If so, I'd hate to deliver > a broken system to people with no easy way to fix it.
I recall that I had a weird crash with the X libs. After reinstalling all of them, the crashes went away. After rebasing... still no error. I wonder what the underlying problem was and if it really was related to rebasing. Maybe there is a subtil bug lurking in the imagehelper library. > I can see why a postinstall script would be much easier but I think we > want to have an straightforward way out if something doesn't work. I > know that the checkbox is problematic though. One problem with > checkbox/postinstall is that the checkbox shows up after the postinstall > scripts have been run, right? Right. And it also looks wrong to make one special postinstall script depending on a user setting while others aren't. > As a potential workaround we could have a completely separate > "runrebaseall" package which consisted of nothing but a postinstall > script that ran rebaseall and peflagsall. It could go in the base > category. Then the workaround if there was a problem with *baseall > would be to uncheck that package when reinstalling. It would be a pain > to have to remember to do that but, in theory, it shouldn't come up too > often. > > OTOH, we could also have some sort of non-setup.exe configuration file > in /etc which controlled what you want *baseall to do when setup.exe was > run, i.e., what starting base address do you want or do you want it to > run at all. > > Btw, is there an "undo" flag in rebaseall now that it stores things in a > database? Does it store the old settings somewhere so that you can > revert to the previous base address settings? No. You can revert by reinstalling. Apart from a real bug in the ReBaseImage routine, there should be no reason that this is necessary. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
