Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)

[Charles Wilson]

Charles Wilson wrote:
> Still looking for the "issue previously discussed".

Robert's meesage that I just posted was originally sent to the list in 
June 2001.  The following thread is three months later, from September 
2001.  However, it seems to pretty thoroughly rehash the "issue" in 
question, but it is not clear to me that the various rationales 
presented still apply, because cgf has rewritten the whole fork-handling 
and heap code at least twice since then.

Top of thread: "[BUG] cygwin-1.3.3-2 -- making auto-import dlls"
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-09/msg01070.html

Robert's response "Auto image base is bad (for cygwin)."
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-09/msg01076.html

cgf in thread "If it means that auto-import-base doesn't work then 
that's really a shame.  I don't know what to say beyond that except live 
with it.  I'm not going to fix binutils."
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2001-09/msg01077.html

I'll try to find the *original* discussion of this issue, which should 
have occured BEFORE June 2001...

--
Chuck