Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/02/20/00:02:27
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Dill, Jens (END-CHI) wrote:
[...]
> I finally found where to get the rebase source, and verified that in
> fact, what Mark noticed in 2.3.1 is still true in 2.4.2-1. I can
> easily make the obvious fix and change the is_rebaseable function to
> get the pe_signature_offset out of position 0x3c in the image rather
> than assuming it is 0x80. But that only affects the bit of the code
> that decides if a DLL is rebaseable. I would need more time and
Thx for the feedback.
> knowledge to convince myself that the code that actually does the
> rebasing is not making the same mistake.
>
> It seems that there is indeed more to it. I did make the "obvious"
> change and reran rebaseall. The message I got from the first Oracle
> DLL it encountered was:
>
> ReBaseImage (/cygdrive/d/oracle/app/oracle/product/9.2.0/bin/orasql9.dll)
> failed with last error = 6
>
> I can't do more without learning a lot more than I currently know
> about the internals of DLLs and of rebase.
You have the "problem" Oracle DLLs, we don't :-) so you might be the
only one who can ultimately solve the problem. But see below...
> But, let us assume for the moment, that we have found the problem,
> that someone can fix "rebase", and we can use it to keep out of
> trouble. How shall I represent this to my management?
>
> Can someone tell me how long it might take for the fix to get into
> a "stable" CygWin release? My management may be willing to use an
> uncertified release for a short while, and even may be willing to
> own the responsibility for making the change to "rebase", but they'll
> want to know how long they have to wait for it to be "official."
>
> And if "rebase" solves the problem, I presume we have to do it
> after we've installed Oracle and before we run any of our apps.
> What happens if we or one of our customers reinstalls Oracle?
> Do we have to make sure that rerunning "rebaseall" is part of
> the drill? The doc for "rebase" says:
>
> <WARNING>
> Note it is *strongly* recommended that users only use rebaseall unless
> they *really* know what they are doing or are instructed by one of the
> Cygwin developers.
> </WARNING>
>
> Not something we want to have to hand off to our customers, or
> even to our installation techs if we can avoid it.
>
> -- Jens
Forgive me for possibly reading more into your text than you intended
and thus responding inappropriately, but, Cygwin is an all-volunteer and
essentially non-managed project. (No offense Christopher :-) There are
no *guarantees* about anything. If Cygwin works for you, that's great.
It is possible though that it won't work for you and for any of various
reasons specific to each volunteer, can't or won't be made to work for
you in any particular timeframe.
How to present the situation to your management is something we can't
answer. I would say, though, perhaps your management could consider
a Cygwin support contract with Red Hat in order to get fixes for
problems you run into. It might be worth it if Cygwin is truly the only
way to accomplish your technical goals.
Respectfully,
..mark
--
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 -