Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:18:59 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Perl Win32::Shortcut screws up fork
Message-ID:	<20050708011859.GB24841@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<7231C15EAC2F164CA6DC326D97493C8BA1C3FA AT exchange35 DOT fed DOT cclrc DOT ac DOT uk> <42CDD3B8 DOT 69B6AB98 AT dessent DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<42CDD3B8.69B6AB98@dessent.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.8i

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:15:36PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
>I think we will require a statically linked bash, or some kind of
>trickery in the rebaseall script.  One potential way around this might
>be for it to output a .cmd file (or .bat under 9x, grrr) and then exec()
>$COMSPEC to run the commands.  This would have the advantage of not
>requiring any Cygwin DLLs in use during the rebase, but it sounds more
>error prone and complicated.

But, the alternative of creating a version of bash just so that people
can run rebaseall sounds even more error prone.

I don't see any other foolproof way of doing this.

Btw, don't '.bat' files work on NT, too?

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/

- Raw text -