Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:56:24 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Cc: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>,
   Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
Subject: Re: setup.exe rebase patch
Message-ID: <20020225155624.GG25838@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com,
	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>,
	Robert Collins <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
References: <20020207134119 DOT GB1804 AT dothill DOT com> <027701c1bd28$c4666170$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C7933C9 DOT 3010708 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020225153624 DOT GB2544 AT hp DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020225153624.GB2544@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>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. :,)

The program itself sounds more like something for cygutils than for
winsup/utils but if it needs to be tightly integrated with setup.exe, it
should probably just live in cinstall.

cgf