Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:18:59 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Perl Win32::Shortcut screws up fork
Message-ID: <20050708011859.GB24841@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <7231C15EAC2F164CA6DC326D97493C8BA1C3FA@exchange35.fed.cclrc.ac.uk> <42CDD3B8.69B6AB98@dessent.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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/