Jason Tishler wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:07:43PM -, 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
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 22:56, Max Bowsher wrote:
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.
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 22:56, Max Bowsher wrote:
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.
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this
Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
pro from me. Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base'
category, IMO.
--Chuck
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 01:14, Max Bowsher wrote:
Should this rebase maybe be a Cygwin, not MinGW version?
(So that we can use POSIX paths with it?)
No - you need to be able to rebase cygwin1.dll too.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
Hi all,
relating to the auto-import-to dll patch in
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/binutils/2002-12/msg00396.html I have added an minor
patch to prevent importing a dll more than one time, which otherwise results in
multiple symbol definition errors.
Especially in libtool environments I have
Especially in libtool environments I have recognized that using the
same dll more than one time occurs often because of the automatic
dependency tracking.
I should add, that this problem only occurs when using the dll like an object
file not as a library.
gcc -o xx.exe objectfiles dll.dll
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 08:53:09AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 08:45, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Should this rebase maybe be a Cygwin, not MinGW version?
(So that we can use POSIX paths with it?)
No - you need to be able to rebase cygwin1.dll too.
As far as I know is
Charles Wilson wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
pro from me. Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base'
category, IMO.
What exactly are the criteria for Base?
Whilst we are
At 06:02 PM 1/25/2003, Max Bowsher wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
pro from me. Actually, rebase probably should be in the 'Base'
category, IMO.
What
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:01:45PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
I wrestled with the category and ended up with Admin. Should the
category be Base instead?
Thanks,
Jason
--
PGP/GPG
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 06:06:32PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
Are we planning to flag DLLs that require invoking rebase when
installed via setup?
Actually, it's apps that require rebasing not the DLLs themselves. For
example, fetchmail does not need cygssl.dll rebased but
Max,
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 02:14:46PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
Note that I will be fleshing out the README and setup.hint (i.e.
ldesc) while the voting takes place.
Removing mentions of fetchmail from the README would be good!
Note the phrase fleshing out above.
On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 14:47, Jason Tishler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:01:45PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
I wrestled with the category and ended up with Admin. Should the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 10:47:00PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:01:45PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I second this. In fact, IMO this vote should really be a formality -
this is core infrastructure after all.
I wrestled with the category and ended up with Admin.
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.
16 matches
Mail list logo