Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:38:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
To: "S. L." <s_i_lao AT gmx DOT net>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: rebase problem (was Re: Happy Birthday (late), cgf...)
In-Reply-To: <25271.1050491696@www3.gmx.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0304161037090.2150-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, S. L. wrote:

> Jason,
>
> It didn't "crash cygwin real good", let's better put it this way: it brought
> me in a mood I've considered my cygwin installation was crashed. Not much
> "technical" info to share.
> Actually, it happened because of (same old story) apache, apxs, mod_ssl, php
> and php_pg on win98. Apache itself and its modules could compile and run
> after rebasing the dlls. I was unable to bring up neither mod_ssl nor php /w
> php_pg. And this by either doing "massive" rebase (i.e. all dlls except
> cygwin1.dll) or just a "selective" one (just the dependecy dlls). Meanwhile pushing
> and pulling around original dlls. [...] I eventually solved the problem by
> compiling a shared_core apache version, which works without rebase, having those
> modules compiled in.
> But since all this took me a month or so, it left a bitter taste of defeat
> upon my relation with rebase (I still consider it a good tool, but I don't
> need it yet :^).
>
> SLao

SLao,

I think you're missing the point.  The old rebase was *broken*.  The new
rebase comes with a "rebaseall" script that will rebase *all* of your DLLs
(which is what should be done).  It's been heavily tested, and I don't
remember any reported problems.  Try it out, you might like it...
	Igor
P.S. I know, "once burned, always wary", but have some faith, man! ;-)
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II


--
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/