This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Extend faq.using to discuss fork failures
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Aug 19 12:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 06:13:22PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >On Aug 19 12:01, Ryan Johnson wrote:
>> >> BTW, I hope that rebasing wouldn't require every invocation of
>> >> setup.exe to shut down all cygwin processes... I really like how
>> >> right now I can pull new packages some configure script needs,
>> >> without having to shut down 4-5 sessions of emacs.
>> >
>> >Seriously, you could propose a patch to rebase, which leaves blocked
>> >DLLs alone and only tries to rebase the colliding ones, if any. Plus a
>> >patch to rebaseall to add a flag
>> >"--don't-test-for-ash-only-just-ignore-what-you-can't-change". Well, a
>> >single char option might be better...
>> >
>> >The rebase sources are available by CVS:
>> >
>> > $ cvs -d "pserver:anoncvs@sourceware.org:/cvs/cygwin-apps co rebase
>> >
>> >Send patches to the cygwin-apps list.
>>
>> As I mentioned in cygwin-apps, I think a --backup option of some kind
>> would be useful so you could restore to a previous state.
>>
>> Why won't anyone implement my idea????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I still don't see how this would be useful. I see occasionally
>situations in which rebase *seems* to have broken a DLL. Or, to put it
>more carefully, some DLL was suddenly broken, without being able to lay
>a finger on the actual cause. However, reverting the DLL base address
>to the former state never worked as a fix for me. Only reinstalling the
>DLL worked, and a subsequent rebasing did not break the DLL. So, to
>repeat myself, I don't see how a reverse or backup mode would be useful.
I mean a real backup, as in a copy the old dll somewhere.
This was really in the context of someone who had previously set up
their system just the way they wanted it who could be surprised when
setup.exe kindly helps them out by resetting the base address of all of
their dlls. Since we can't easily ask "Do you want to do this?" from
a setup post-install script it just seemed to me that we have to have
a foolproof recovery if things blow up.
cgf