Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/07/07/21:48:02
Christopher Faylor 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?
By 'error prone' I meant that the current rebaseall script knows to stop
the process when the first error happens. A .bat file would just try to
plow through without checking, though you could certainly write more
logic to check the errorlevel. But you would have to limit yourself to
the command.com level of functionality, which is pretty prehistoric
IIRC.
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.
When I mentioned a static bash I was thinking of just making the base
package statically compiled, not having an alternative. Somehow I
imagined that this would make it a little faster too, but that's
probably going to be insignificant.
I'm also wondering if the issue would ever come up in postinstall
scripts. Where before with ash or bash 2.x, we only required a working
Cygwin DLL, now any postinstall script has to also have these 4 core
DLLs in addition to the Cygwin DLL in place for any postinstall to
function. I haven't really though this through though, as to whether
this scenario matters.
Brian
--
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 -