Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/09/18/23:45:34
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:52:56AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor"
>
>>>What I suggest isn't that usefull when you think to base all
>>>DLL that have been installed by setup.exe. It becomes usefull in the
>>>moment the user starts to compile his own DLL especially if he used
>>>scripts to control compilation. To compile somethng is a typical use
>>>of cygwin.
>>
>> No, it really isn't.
>>
>> This isn't a bad idea but it's not really a typical use case. ?Perhaps you'd
>> like to offer a patch to rebaseall to accomplish this?
>
>I'd beg to differ; I'd suggest it is, as suggested by the OP,
>actually quite a common use. You only have to look at the use of
>say perl and you will have users quite regularly compiling their
>own DLL's as they install modules via CPAN, and this is quite painful
>due to all the issues it can present with rebase.
We have different definitions of the term "typical". The vast VAST
majority of people who use Cygwin do not build their own DLLs but they
are likely to run into rebase problems.
>To reiterate I still think that developers deserve much respect
>and thanks for all the effort they put in, but a little more open
>mindedness and approachability like that which can be found in other
>open source communities such as SFU and FreeBSD wouldn't go a miss
>sometimes ;-)
You are responding, for some reason, to one line where I said "No, it
really isn't" and ignoring the rest of the message where I suggested
that the OP could provide a patch and they even said they were going to
do so. This is pretty typical Cygwin mailing list behavior: ignore the
substance and focus on the indignation. It's hardly helpful and it
doesn't really get the problem solved.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -