X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= default; b=Y2ygHytEsbwRtOXcy81DN+WW98BRs8zIJlHy4S6aMyGqP++gibfof WPkVrS2kVjlUM997ezWj/PpqpqotSNVPweanFAjLHa+htsYgOczHAlf3S3dL2qn5 YXyzYhgGQUVVSBYP8UcTT2F3SiiJYMAmjoHjwzRX9cy/9HbJRedmlg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:to:from:subject:date:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=I/HJ9tVC0IIavvkcgIH90/ECa5I=; b=vTFxEpRJ5FO8sBn6jYbUnTsiHYC0 K4blHBSJwhykgAT7sTeLeCsqZKv0dXs+SKDgg+HGnRiAyTPdVy8RAzxJoooGuUDU h5D1yyUtkU8/cEQHvDfadHAFnwr9cj+IOepuHaT5E8eQcHjBc4HxhvDbE2DKjZxU JnK4oVsuy+XeL+g= 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 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: plane.gmane.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "D. Boland" Subject: Re: rebaseall breaks some packages(?) Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 11:21:05 +0200 Lines: 33 Message-ID: <53B91501.18796CB7@boland.nl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Hi Katsumi, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote: > However, those reinstallations cause some other programs to not > work. For those other programs, rebaseall does help. Though it > breaks bzr, emacs-w3m, etc. again. It's annoying. > > Thanks in advance for your help. > Regards, I agree. It's annoying. See this post also: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-11/msg00894.html I'm a developer of Windows software for 15 years now, and my clients never had to rebase my binaries. I'm also a Linux teacher and I use Cygwin in class. My students (100+) repeatedly got these errors, so I switched to an improved version of apt-cyg, which does not rebase. I'm a happy teacher now. What's the deal with this "rebasing" anyway? Every compiler has a built-in mechanism to create unique offsets. Windows itself also rebases binaries at load-time. On the other hand, why not rebase at compile-time? Rebasing should not be the responsibility of the user, but of the developer. See this article: http://harshdeep.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/thou-shalt-rebase-thy-dll/ Hmm.. This turned out to be a rant. I'm sorry for hijacking your thread. Daniel -- 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