Re: Q: rebaseall/rebaseperl ?

[Reini Urban <rurban at x-ray dot at>]

Eliot Moss schrieb:
> On 7/5/2010 5:22 PM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Am 05.07.2010, 23:09 Uhr, schrieb Cyrille Lefevre:
>
> > > any reasons why rebaseall and rebase perl aren't executed at compile
> > > time ? or at packaging time ?

It IS done at packaging time on XP, and tested on Win7

At install-time a rebaseall would be preferred, since we packagers do 
not know how many dlls the client has installed, esp. those which might 
clash.

perlrebase is mainly useful, if a full rebaseall is too large, and/or 
another perl has to be rebased, which CAN conflict with the default perl.

> > Probably because it's not possible to oversee which installation would
> > need which libraries later, and because you'd have to have a registry,
> > or algorithm to derive base addresses, for each and every potential
> > library. Meaning: not manageable with reasonable effort.
>
> Put another way, the exact addresses and spacing needed vary
> with platform and perhaps according to other stuff installed,
> so it would be hard to do in advance. It *might* be possible
> to do it as part of setup on an individual platform, i.e.,
> *technically* feasible, but I expect it would be *managerially*
> a nightmare, since it is a somewhat complicated thing that
> gives people more room to screw up ...

Jason explictily listed TODO's in his rebase package README.
A setup database to skip already know addresses and rebase new ones into 
the holes or at the end is TODO.
--
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/  http://murbreak.at/

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