DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=fJGJB5vHhGVDjE5M
	7+gtLhiJMp3q7ObwaZ5mHAClvyik03i4KZB8vSRAspuyJX8fAUWbvS439UUW1hqA
	X3L1hgcY4ZZpJ5e0kzaPfvtFGaXPYQhnNs9Sl/mv74OmkzG25qqaNQUthQv3i36C
	bhhcRFVgK86BWiTW278fs+iua78=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 22:34:56 +0400
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <167898398.20140706223456@yandex.ru>
To: "D. Boland" <daniel AT boland DOT nl>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: rebaseall breaks some packages(?)
In-Reply-To: <53B91501.18796CB7@boland.nl>
References: <b4mr42oujhi DOT fsf AT jpl DOT org> <53B91501 DOT 18796CB7 AT boland DOT nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings, D. Boland!

>> 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

4.5, soon 5 years. There was a lot of work over rebase and it's cooperation
with setup. Can you reproduce this issue today?

> 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.

I suggest a Linux VM, since you are a teacher.
Strongly suggest.

> My students (100+) repeatedly got these errors,

Which are "these errors"? And how long you are using Cygwin?
If you are using it from before the setup/rebase changes, may be, it's time to
do a fresh install and see, if that would improve the situation?
Or switch to x86-64 cygwin, which have a bit better situation with memory
layout.

> so I switched to an improved
> version of apt-cyg, which does not rebase. I'm a happy teacher now.

Unlikely it's true. More likely, it automatically rebase, but you did not
notice.

> 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. 

Windows and POSIX models require different load techniques.
Cygwin provide POSIX compatibility layer.

> On the other hand, why not rebase at compile-time?

Because it's not possible for two reasons.
First, packages are compiled in many different places, and second - there's
just not enough memory to place every possible Cygwin library in 32-bit
address space. Neither it's feasible, as noone need every cygwin package at
once.

> Rebasing should not be the responsibility of the user, but of the developer.

Cygwin users are developers. That's the intended audience, anyway.

> 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.

It's a simple misunderstanding, overweighted with lack of information.
If you do a search through the mailing list, you can find much better
explanations for the reasons of rebase, than mine.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 06.07.2014, <22:18>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
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