On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 08:15:51PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
When I link with popt.
(2) But isn't rebase written in C++?
Which version? :,) The first version is C++. The second version (this
one) is C, because I considered contributing it to binutils. The third
Ralf,
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 11:40:44PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
I found another bug (most likely introduce by me in a previous
patch) when rebasing up and the DLL is already based at the
requested address. The attached patch is one way to correct this
problem.
Applied and
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:11:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
Can I upload and release rebase? Or, are there any more issues that
need to be addressed before the initial release?
Not a release stopper, but as a later enhancement, could we have a
--help option? Just
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:50:43PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
No news is good news. So, I just uploaded rebase-2.2-2.
Woo hoo! That's good news.
cgf
Jason Tishler wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 06:11:28PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
Can I upload and release rebase? Or, are there any more issues that
need to be addressed before the initial release?
Not a release stopper, but as a later enhancement, could we have a
I found another bug (most likely introduce by me in a previous patch)
when rebasing up and the DLL is already based at the requested address.
The attached patch is one way to correct this problem.
Applied and checked in.
Ralf
Just out of curiosity, why has this discussion suddenly moved to cygwin
at cygwin dot com from cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com?
It was my error, an little accident. Sorry
Ralf
Ralf,
You switched mailing lists on me. Plus, I've reattached the patch after
converting it to binary mode.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 02:42:40PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
I'm concerned that my guard might have an off-by-one error and miss
the last entry. Is there an easy way to check this?
Jason Tishler wrote:
The latest rebase can be found at:
http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/rebase-2.2-1.tar.bz2
http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/rebase-2.2-1-src.tar.bz2
Can I upload and release rebase? Or, are there any more issues that
need to be addressed before
Just out of curiosity, why has this discussion suddenly moved to cygwin
at cygwin dot com from cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com?
Igor
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Ralf Habacker wrote:
wasn't tight enough.
My version:
(char *)relocp-SizeOfBlock (char *)relocs + size
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:16:25AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 12:41:43AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:47:51PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
got a segfault whilst processing:
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/cygwin-multi/auto/SDBM_File/SDBM_File.dll
Your guard:
(char *)relocp (char *)relocs + size
wasn't tight enough.
My version:
(char *)relocp-SizeOfBlock (char *)relocs + size
seems to be.
What was the problem with this guard: Does it not fix the last entry of a
relocation block ?
Ralf
Ralf,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 01:48:09PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
Your guard:
(char *)relocp (char *)relocs + size
wasn't tight enough.
My version:
(char *)relocp-SizeOfBlock (char *)relocs + size
seems to be.
What was the problem with this guard:
To which
Ralf,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:27:08PM +0100, Ralf Habacker wrote:
I can reproduce it now. I will debug and try to fix it myself. If
I'm unsuccessful, then I will ask Ralf for help.
Jason, your rebase depends on the ms imagehelp library, isn't it.
Not anymore:
$ rebase -V
Max,
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 12:41:43AM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:47:51PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
got a segfault whilst processing:
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/cygwin-multi/auto/SDBM_File/SDBM_File.dll
from Cygwin perl-5.6.1-2.
Jason Tishler wrote:
I get the
I can reproduce it now. I will debug and try to fix it myself. If I'm
unsuccessful, then I will ask Ralf for help.
Jason, your rebase depends on the ms imagehelp library, isn't it.
A way may be to try my version with the -D flag. This give some additional hint
about the internals of the dll.
Jason Tishler wrote:
I have converted rebaseall.bat to a shell script, rebaseall.
The latest setup.hint is attached and the latest binary and source
tarballs are available at:
http://www.tishler.net/jason/software/rebase/rebase-2.1-1.tar.bz2
Max,
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:47:51PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
Please review the packaging, setup.hint, README, and tryout rebaseall.
Did so,
Thanks!
got a segfault whilst processing:
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/cygwin-multi/auto/SDBM_File/SDBM_File.dll
from Cygwin
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 04:47:51PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
got a segfault whilst processing:
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/cygwin-multi/auto/SDBM_File/SDBM_File.dll
from Cygwin perl-5.6.1-2.
Jason Tishler wrote:
I get the following:
$ rebase -v -b 0x6800 SDBM_File.dll
ReBaseImage
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:23:55PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:26:18PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:46:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I really think that a general purpose utility like rebase, which
could be used repeatedly (as
Joe,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:59:09AM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
Long term I will enhance rebase.exe to work in one of two modes:
1. persistent: work along side of setup.exe to rebase DLLs that have not
(yet) been installed by setup.exe
2. non-persistent:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:46:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I really think that a general purpose utility like rebase, which could
be used repeatedly (as opposed to occasionally for debugging
purposes), should be a cygwin program.
Since there haven't been any strong Mingw votes, I have
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:26:18PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 02:46:13PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I really think that a general purpose utility like rebase, which could
be used repeatedly (as opposed to occasionally for debugging
purposes), should be a cygwin
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:23:55PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:26:18PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
Should I also convert my rebaseall.bat to a shell script too?
IMO, yes.
Good. Did I ever tell you how much I hate NT batch file programming?
You know, it's
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 08:02, Jason Tishler wrote:
Actually, I need it for proper Cygwin setup.exe operation anyway.
IIRC there's an abstracted version in setup.exe you can leverage.
Cheers,
Rob
--
GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt.
signature.asc
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:23:55AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
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
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
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
Jason Tishler wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
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.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:21:57PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
What is the consensus on Cygwin vs. Mingw? We already have 2.75
votes for Cygwin. :,) I won't mind replacing getopt() with popt
anyway.
Problem: If it was Cygwin, it couldn't use any other Cygwin dll -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Tishler wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
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
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:21:57PM -, Max Bowsher wrote:
Problem: If it was Cygwin, it couldn't use any other Cygwin dll - like
cygpopt-0.dll (it might need to rebase them).
It's somewhat an unanswered question whether rebasing cygwin1.dll is
necessary/useful/harmful.
Necessary? Unlikely.
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
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.
I would like to contribute a stand-alone (non-persistent) rebase to the
standard Cygwin distribution. This version is a combination of my
main() (i.e., command line interface) and Ralf Habacker's imagehelper
library. Note that this version should work on Windows Me and
automatically fixes bad
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? If not, can we discuss a more
self-explanatory
Max,
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
a reboot.
48 matches
Mail list logo
