X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4C32853D.1040605@cs.umass.edu> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:22:05 -0400 From: Eliot Moss Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Q: rebaseall/rebaseperl ? References: <4C3249EC.9010404@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On 7/5/2010 5:22 PM, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 05.07.2010, 23:09 Uhr, schrieb Cyrille Lefevre: >> any reasons why rebaseall and rebase perl aren't executed at compile >> time ? or at packaging time ? > > Probably because it's not possible to oversee which installation would > need which libraries later, and because you'd have to have a registry, > or algorithm to derive base addresses, for each and every potential > library. Meaning: not manageable with reasonable effort. Put another way, the exact addresses and spacing needed vary with platform and perhaps according to other stuff installed, so it would be hard to do in advance. It *might* be possible to do it as part of setup on an individual platform, i.e., *technically* feasible, but I expect it would be *managerially* a nightmare, since it is a somewhat complicated thing that gives people more room to screw up ... Regards -- Eliot -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple