Re: [ITP] rebase

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

maxb@ukf.net wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:27:54AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 11:13:52PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Should this rebase maybe be a Cygwin, not MinGW version?  (So that
> > > > > we can use POSIX paths with it?)
> > > > My very first version was a Cygwin app.  I converted it to Mingw
> > > > when Chuck pointed out imagehlp.dll is dependent on msvcrt.dll.
> > > > Now that I'm using Ralf's imagehelper library we have a choice
> > > > (unless rebasing cygwin1.dll is a requirement).  Although, I waffle
> > > > on the Cygwin vs.  Mingw issues, I'm leaning toward Mingw.
> > > The only reason I can think of to make it a cygwin app (and I think
> > > it is a powerful one) is for the path issues.  If someone wants to
> > > rebase cygwin, maybe the README could tell them how to do that,
> > > e.g., make a copy, rebase that, use Windows tools to copy the
> > > rebased DLL back to cygwin1.dll.
> > What is the consensus on Cygwin vs. Mingw?  We already have 2.75 votes
> > for Cygwin. :,)  I won't mind replacing getopt() with popt anyway.
>
> Problem: If it was Cygwin, it couldn't use any other Cygwin dll - like
> cygpopt-0.dll (it might need to rebase them).
> It's somewhat an unanswered question whether rebasing cygwin1.dll is
> necessary/useful/harmful.
>
> IMO, we already have strace & cygcheck that don't do Cygwin paths. It might
> be better to get rebase in as is, and think about this as a possible long
> term enhancement (you know, that lightweight path translation library
> mentioned as a possibility in the setup TODO).
Umm...  couldn't you just link statically to libpopt.a?

Cheers,
Nicholas

[Yes, the new popt will be out soon, have patience =)]