Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Max Bowsher
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Robert Collins
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Nicholas Wourms
[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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Charles Wilson
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Robert Collins
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

[patch] auto-import-dll libtool related patch

2003-01-25 Thread Ralf Habacker
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

RE: [patch] auto-import-dll libtool related patch

2003-01-25 Thread Ralf Habacker
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Max Bowsher
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Jason Tishler
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Jason Tishler
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Jason Tishler
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.

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Robert Collins
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

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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.

Re: [ITP] rebase

2003-01-25 Thread Christopher Faylor
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.