[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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).
Umm... couldn't you just link statically to libpopt.a?
Cheers,
Nicholas
[Yes, the new popt will be out soon, have patience =)]