Re: mismatched dll

Re: mismatched dll

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:43:52PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:38:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:37:12PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > >On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 09:58:17PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
> > >>There's always another alternative - propose to maintain your package
> > >>as part of the official cygwin distribution.  Then you just point
> > >>people to cygwin.com, and source code distribution becomes cygwin.com's
> > >>problem instead of yours.
> > >
> > >OK, here I do have some evidence to support me when I say you are
> > >partially wrong.
> > >http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-08/msg00064.html So, that is
> > >not a good alternative.
> > 
> > I retract my veto.  If this is submitted via normal channels, I will have
> > no objections.
> 
> Well, I suppose
> 
>     "anything in computer science is [possible], if you are willing to write 
>     the code and wait long enough"?

We clearly have someone here who has caught on to the spirit of cygwin.

Re: mismatched dll

[Igor Peshansky]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:43:52PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:38:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:37:12PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 09:58:17PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > >>There's always another alternative - propose to maintain your package
> > > >>as part of the official cygwin distribution.  Then you just point
> > > >>people to cygwin.com, and source code distribution becomes cygwin.com's
> > > >>problem instead of yours.
> > > >
> > > >OK, here I do have some evidence to support me when I say you are
> > > >partially wrong.
> > > >http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-08/msg00064.html So, that is
> > > >not a good alternative.
> > >
> > > I retract my veto.  If this is submitted via normal channels, I will have
> > > no objections.
> >
> > Well, I suppose
> >
> >     "anything in computer science is [possible], if you are willing to write
> >     the code and wait long enough"?
>
> We clearly have someone here who has caught on to the spirit of cygwin.

Or caught it from others[*], as it may be...
	Igor
[*] <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-02/msg00087.html>
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_	    pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		old name: Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte."
"But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in
that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"

Re: mismatched dll

[Williams, Gerald S (Jerry)]

Brian Dessent wrote:
> The CBCP installer plays nice, notices that the user has
> Cygwin installed with the most recent DLL, so it does not
> install its own copy.  Everyone is happy.  But then say
> six months later the under removes Cygwin [...]

This looks like a job for reference counters. All we need
to do is have Cygwin keep track of who's referring to it
and delete itself when the last one's gone.

We can implement it as a rootkit that intercepts attempts
to add or delete executables or DLLs. Then if you add an
executable that depends on Cygwin, it can automatically
grab the latest version off of the nearest mirror. And if
you delete the last file that depends on cygwin1.dll, it
can pop up the following message:

   "Warning, Cygwin deleted. Should I reformat and
    install Linux?"

Anything is possible with software, right?

gsw

P.S. Of course this rootkit would disable any antivirus
     known to conflict with Cygwin, just to be safe. :-)