Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:36:24 -0500 From: Jason Tishler Subject: Re: setup.exe rebase patch In-reply-to: <3C7933C9.3010708@ece.gatech.edu> To: Charles Wilson Cc: Robert Collins , Cygwin-Apps Mail-followup-to: Charles Wilson , Robert Collins , Cygwin-Apps Message-id: <20020225153624.GB2544@hp.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i References: <20020207134119 DOT GB1804 AT dothill DOT com> <027701c1bd28$c4666170$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C7933C9 DOT 3010708 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:41:13PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > >Neato. This sounds like a cygutils thingo to me, or a new package. > >Chuck? Ohhhh Chuck? > > Ummm...do we really want to fork the code into two separate locations? No, they should somehow share the common code. > It seems to me that the best thing to do would be the following: > > [snip very reasonable proposal] > > Yeah -- which is why they should both come from the same code. In the > same location. I *strongly* advocate adding rebase.exe to the cinstall > directory since it will be so tightly tied to setup.exe's behavior... cinstall is fine with me. winsup/utils is another possibility. I'm having problems deciding which is better. I'm willing to go along with the consensus. Unless, Chris would like to make an executive decision. :,) Thanks, Jason