X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:27:43 +0200
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: chmod permission denied on windows 2008
Message-ID: <20080707172743.GA28534@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <83D9FB620178474D8B7E673F8BE88FBF AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <6C897634739C412CA4367B8530734B2F AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20080707093546 DOT GA6791 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <910CB48BB8D549278A018EEC77702BAC AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20080707130252 DOT GB25687 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5CF5D99F8E794172B32368C22791FD5C AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <39D81418C24D4AD9B59EA052A5AA7DA8 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <20080707150856 DOT GA26581 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4A4ECF8C631E4CA3B04B67C7F9EE2E36 AT multiplay DOT co DOT uk> <00fc01c8e051$14633d40$2708a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00fc01c8e051$14633d40$2708a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Jul  7 17:47, Dave Korn wrote:
> Steven Hartland wrote on 07 July 2008 17:12:
> > From: "Corinna Vinschen"
> >> The DLL has been build with VC++ due to the lack of a 64 bit capable gcc
> >> for Cygwin.  As long as this is the case, rebaseall will have to be
> >> changed to skip cyglsa.dll and cyglsa64.dll.  For the time being, what
> >> you did is the right thing to do.
> > 
> > Hmm cyglsa.dll appeared to process fine could this cause an issue?

No.  Cyglsa.dll as well as cyglsa64.dll are not linked in to
applications, but into the LSA, so they could potentially be locked by
the OS.  Even though cyglsa.dll *could* be rebased, it doesn't make any
sense and could just result in trouble.

> ...uhh, what I meant to say is, "Surely the problem here is that rebase
> can't process an in-use DLL and the lsa dll is always in-use from very early
> system startup - hence why replacing it in setup.exe requires a

It's only in use after you manually called cyglsa-config and rebooted the
machine, and if you did that, only one of the DLLs is in use depending on
using a 32-bit or 64-bit OS.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
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/