X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <45F5B8C3.C4F5D006@dessent.net> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:32:03 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Problem with ruby and cygssl-0.9.8.dll References: <45F5B05C DOT 7020605 AT cheshirelaw DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com "Geoffrey T. Cheshire" wrote: > OK, thanks. But if you've used rebaseall once, won't you have to always > rebase again any time you update cygwin? That is, if rebaseall arranges > each image base in a contiguous block, then you need to rearrange them > any time you add/change a dll. This is because you've created a > "custom" image base location for each of your images, and > --enable-auto-image-base doesn't help. Technically, yes. Practically, no. Most binaries work fine with DLLs that had to be relocated due to conflicts. And the chances of two DLLs being back-to-back in the rebaseall list and also used in the same app at once tend to be small. There are only a relatively small number of binaries that suffer from image base issues, and they tend to be those that dynamically load modules (dlopen/LoadLibrary) such as python, ruby, apache, etc. Really you can pretty much take a "as long as I don't get fork errors I don't need to care about rebasing" attitude. Brian -- 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/