This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Shall setup.exe call rebaseall in postinstall?
On Aug 12 14:36, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:53:47PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Aug 12 12:56, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:13:22PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>>I'd just suggest on by default and remembers its state between runs.
> >>
> >>Ditto.
> >
> >That's fine, but let's remember the original questions.
> >
> >- *Shall* setup call rebaseall at all?
> >
> >- If yes, hardcoded or as postinstall script?
> >
> >As a sidenote, if by postinstall script, there's no way to influence it
> >with a checkbox. In theory I'd rather see a postinstall script since
> >that's a more flexible way to do the right thing.
>
> Don't we still have sporadic reports of rebaseall "breaking" things? I
> think it was libncurses* that had problems. If so, I'd hate to deliver
> a broken system to people with no easy way to fix it.
I recall that I had a weird crash with the X libs. After reinstalling
all of them, the crashes went away. After rebasing... still no error.
I wonder what the underlying problem was and if it really was related to
rebasing. Maybe there is a subtil bug lurking in the imagehelper library.
> I can see why a postinstall script would be much easier but I think we
> want to have an straightforward way out if something doesn't work. I
> know that the checkbox is problematic though. One problem with
> checkbox/postinstall is that the checkbox shows up after the postinstall
> scripts have been run, right?
Right. And it also looks wrong to make one special postinstall script
depending on a user setting while others aren't.
> As a potential workaround we could have a completely separate
> "runrebaseall" package which consisted of nothing but a postinstall
> script that ran rebaseall and peflagsall. It could go in the base
> category. Then the workaround if there was a problem with *baseall
> would be to uncheck that package when reinstalling. It would be a pain
> to have to remember to do that but, in theory, it shouldn't come up too
> often.
>
> OTOH, we could also have some sort of non-setup.exe configuration file
> in /etc which controlled what you want *baseall to do when setup.exe was
> run, i.e., what starting base address do you want or do you want it to
> run at all.
>
> Btw, is there an "undo" flag in rebaseall now that it stores things in a
> database? Does it store the old settings somewhere so that you can
> revert to the previous base address settings?
No. You can revert by reinstalling. Apart from a real bug in the
ReBaseImage routine, there should be no reason that this is necessary.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat