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). As to cygwin1.dll: It's given a specific base address by .def file. Changing it should be unnecessary, even if it is not a problem. Max.
