Autrijus Tang wrote:
å ä, 2003-12-24 05:21, Cosimo Streppone åéï
> I tried to work on it, but this change triggers a strange
> behaviour [...]
Thanks, I finally nailed it down today and it should be fine on the
freshly-released 0.76_99.
Yes, 0.76_99 works for me also, and process list shows the
correct name for executable.
> I don't know if the following problem falls into the
> "bad signature" one, but I can report that upx packed
> executables are "broken": they don't run anymore and
> generate this error message:
Interesting. Which version of UPX are you using, the -devel or the
-stable one? I vaguely remember one of them is broken and another
works.
I tried with 1.24 (stable) and 1.90 (unstable) and
the same problem persists.
--
Cosimo
