Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <031101c0b411$3f9cd3a0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: References: <009201c0b373$270a6ee0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323174032 DOT A30954 AT redhat DOT com> <200103232258 DOT RAA03576 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <00af01c0b3f0$e751e200$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <200103232349 DOT SAA03971 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <021801c0b3fb$97ff2d60$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323204621 DOT B17066 AT redhat DOT com> <02ec01c0b406$6e3822b0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010323210835 DOT F17066 AT redhat DOT com> Subject: Re: setup revisit Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 14:19:32 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2001 03:13:55.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[760C7C20:01C0B410] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" To: Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 1:08 PM Subject: Re: setup revisit > >Actually you *still* have to say that. I get caught by cygipc.exe on a > >routine basis - and I hope I'm not your average newbie. You will > >*always* have to say that until whatever is trying to replace > >cygwin1.dll / bash to name the most probable culprits is able to do > >"behind the scenes" work. See my comments re replaceing files on reboot > >for a long term solution. > > You do have to say this when you are installing the cygwin package. > Other packages are unaffected. With the old installer any installation > (gcc, bash, ncurses, etc.) was affected by the cygwin conflict. Oh. That wouldn't have affected what I was suggesting (the current cygwin1.dll would be used unless an update was present - in which case it comes back to the current setup's behaviour.). > >True. I was hoping to put my nose down and hack all weekend, but it > >looks like rpm is *not* going to play nice so I'll give it a slightly > >lower priority for now. > > Don't let me discourage you though, Robert. If you can get this done, > it will be pretty cool. Doesn't RPM have a library like interface, too? > I'm lookinginto that. The RPM issue I'm fighting with currently is porting sleepycat's db to raw win32 as a static library. (It doesn't build with gcc unless you build it for cygwin :[). Once that's out of the way I can actually try to build rpm natively. Rob