Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 20:02:22 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: dll_list::load_after_fork() blues (was Re: [ python-Bugs-489709 ] Building Fails ...) Message-ID: <20011208010222.GC27247@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011206124426 DOT B1448 AT dothill DOT com> <3C0FB399 DOT 2020300 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <01fc01c17f74$0d774a20$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C1164C8 DOT AF785AAC AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C1164C8.AF785AAC@ece.gatech.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 07:54:32PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Anyway, they had a problem after upgrading to a new cygwinish dll >(cygncurses?? I think) w.r.t. load-on-fork. There's no way setup/rebase >can be used to avoid that problem a_priori...is there? (As I recall, >the person did a 'hand rebase' on his own system to work around >it...aware that he would have to repeat the process every time he >updated that problem DLL from the cygwin dist) A rebase utility for cygwin would be pretty nice, I think. We could even include a .bat file which could iterate over all of the dlls in /bin and make sure there were no conflicts. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/