Re: [ITP] rebase

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:07:43PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Jason Tishler wrote:
>>> 2. non-persistent: rebase DLLs ignoring setup.exe's rebase database
>>> (which is essentially today's, MS-like functionality)
>>
>> "non-persistent" seems to imply that the effects get cancelled out by
>> a reboot. Is this really the case?
>
> No, once a DLL is rebased it stays that way until it is rebased again
> regardless of reboots.

Thought so.

> By "non-persistent," I mean that once a set of DLLs are rebased the
> knowledge (i.e., persistence) of their base addresses is lost.  Hence,
> if you want to rebase a new DLLs, then one must rebase *all* DLLs
> again to guarantee that no DLL base address conflicts will occur.
>
> If setup.exe or rebase.exe persists this information in a convenient
> form, then the user can rebase incrementally without having to rebase
> all the DLLs over and over again.
>
>> If not, can we discuss a more self-explanatory name for this?
>
> Sure.  Can you suggest a better name for this concept?

Hmm. Standalone / Database ? That's still not wonderful. Maybe I'll think of
a better name.

> I hope that using the term "non-persistent" does not delay the voting
> process...

Definitely not.
I vote "pro" regardless of what name we choose.


Max.