Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/12/26/12:22:24
Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 12/25/2006, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> FWIW, I have replaced the libs like cygwin1.dll, cygintl?.dll...
>> and such while cygwin is running and not had a catastrophe as one
>> might have
>> trying to overwrite/update the memory image of a kernel dynamically,
>> so I
>> don't think it's quite all the end of the world you make it out to
>> be. But
>> I admit it doesn't sound clean.
>
> It's more than that regardless of your (lucky) experiences. It is that
> way for a reason, whether or not you know or understand it. However, if
> your short-cut works well for you in your usage, more power to you. It
> can't be advocated as a general solution for cygwin1.dll though.
My saying it doesn't sound "clean" is agreement on this issue.
> It's also worthwhile to note that the Cygwin web site still states that
> "The Cygwin DLL works with all non-beta, non "release candidate", ix86 32
> bit versions of Windows since Windows 95, with the exception of
> Windows CE."
> So regardless of how XP and later platforms may handle DLL replacements,
> 'setup.exe' still needs to handle the cases prior to the more advanced
> techniques you mention. For now, that means 'setup.exe' works as it
> always has, until someone offers a patch to make it more discriminating.
> That someone could be you! ;-)
----
The fix I proposed has nothing to do with the cygwin1.dll. As has
been covered previously, since cygwin1.dll and a few other libs are
part of the cygwin "kernel", special handling may be needed to upgrade
those dll's. What can be fixed is the installation of .exe and .dll
files for
applications. The behavior of those should be the same as replacing
in-use .so's and executables on *nix.
Just because something hasn't been tested on unprotected-mode windows
(95, 98, ME) doesn't mean something might not work. However, one of
the features of WinXP was the ability to install applications without the
requirement of rebooting. Most applications handle this difference
transparently -- as could Cygwin. I.e. cygwin could access the more
modern install features of NT when on NT, and use the older methods
(assuming the new methods don't work) on older platforms.
As for needing a patch -- as Igor has said, "everyone knows how
to implement this": it's not exactly rocket science to implement.
-l
--
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 -