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>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:33:51 -0400
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
Subject: Re: rebasing new packages?!
In-reply-to: <3CD1D978.2080701@ece.gatech.edu>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-followup-to: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-id: <20020503133351.GB3216@tishler.net>
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: 
 <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5F98 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
 <3CD1D978 DOT 2080701 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>

On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 08:27:36PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Stipe Tolj [mailto:tolj AT wapme-systems DOT de] 
> >>Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 1:10 AM
> >>
> >>could someone of the gurus arround tell a (half-)guru :)) 
> >>what the standard way would be if packages have rebase problems?
> >>
> >
> >We either get Jasons in-setup-rebase patch into setup, or include a
> >command line rebase, and make your package require it, and your
> >postinstall script execute it.
> 
> I thought that the last time this subject came up, the consensus was 
> that Jason's code should go into the cinstall area (now, of course, that 
> means the setup repository).  The standalone rebase.exe should be built 
> within that project, along with setup.exe which would leverage the same 
> code.
> 
> That way, there's no possibility that the two programs would get 
> out-of-sync with respect to the /etc/rebase.conf (?) information and 
> file format.

The above is correct.  Unfortunately, I'm still not finished.
[Jason hangs his head in shame]  Sigh...

Jason