Re: Perl Win32::Shortcut screws up fork

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>]

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:24:20PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>According to Christopher Faylor on 7/7/2005 8:05 PM:
>>>Option B would be to write a C or C++ program to do the job of what
>>>rebaseall currently does.  That's even more work.
>> 
>> I was going to suggest that but it requires that the user had loaded
>> the C compiler which seems like overkill for this.
>
>I think the intent of this suggestion was to replace rebaseall (the shell
>script) with rebaseall.exe (the static executable), not to have rebaseall
>output C source code, compile it, then run it.
>
>But what was wrong with my idea of making rebaseall a #!/bin/ash script?

You still couldn't run the script from bash since the dlls would still
be loaded.  That would mean that you'd have to do something like:

c:\>ash rebaseall

(Currently rebaseall won't work as an ash script but the fix is trivial)

I guess that's better than nothing but I still think that just not
rebasing the bash dlls is going to result in fewer mailing list
complaints.

OTOH, if we had some coordination between the maintainers of DLLs in
the distribution we could reduce the need for rebase a lot.  I don't
know if using --enable-auto-image-base would fix every problem but
I suspect that it might help.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/