Re: 1.5.x goes current on 2003-08-23?

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at netscape dot net>]

Jason Tishler wrote:

> Nicholas,
>
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 02:03:02AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
> > Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >
> > > Perl is required for many operations, and (as I'm sure Chuck will
> > > agree) having to rebase a *critical* core application *just* to get
> > > it work is unacceptable.  
> >
> > Hey, don't drag me into this.  Rebase is (currently) a necessary evil 
> > for python and maybe perl, but I gave up maintaining perl a LONG time 
> > ago and I don't intend to stick my nose into it now.  It's Gerritt's 
> > baby, and I trust him to do whatever is necessary to make stuff work. 
> > But, he's asked for help -- so help, dammit, don't carp.
                                ^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^
> Exactly.

Not quite.  I've got plenty to keep me occupied, thank you.  As you'll 
note, this commentary was made in reply to a flame that stated I should 
go out and enrich M$ more by purchasing a copy of XP.  One day I will, 
but not today.  To put it quite simply, I'm being told that the solution 
to the problem is to ignore the problem and go spend $$$.

As for trying to help, well AFAIK, it is impossible to get perl to debug 
under gdb on WinME since one of two things happen:

1)either you try to run perl inside gdb, which promptly locks up the 
machine.

2)you try to get gdb to catch the process when it segfaults, which again 
is useless since it locks up the machine.

> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:56:38PM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
>
> > No offense to Jason, but rebase is really just "papering" over a much
> > bigger infrastructure problem which isn't going away.  The problem is
> > that "rebase all" only takes into account the dll's installed by the
> > installer.  It certainly doesn't take into account dll's which aren't
> > named ".dll" (like in Ruby which leaves them named *.so).  It also
> > won't take into account user-installed dlls or perl modules.  I've
> > managed to work around this on my Win2k machine by modifying rebase
> > all to use `locate` and to run rebase on any ".so"'s it finds in the
> > Ruby dir.
>
>
> If rebase and rebaseall don't meet your needs, then supply the patch(es)
> to enhance them so they do.

Unfortunately, I have no patches to supply.  Using find/locate is rather 
sub-optimal and probably isn't the way to go.

However, one partial solution would be to rename the ruby .so's to 
.dll's in the buildscript.

But all the rebase patches in the world aren't going to "really" fix the 
problem, since the problem lies in the heart of Cygwin, not rebase.  I 
think I'm just going to quit trying to argue this now, since people 
obviously aren't interested in discussing it (not that my reply to 
Gerrit's flame even intended to do so).

Cheers,
Nicholas



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/