----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com> Cc: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:32 PM Subject: Observation for ALL maintainers who provide dlls (was Re: question for perl maintainer)
> [redirecting to cygwin-apps] > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:27:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jul 8 17:20, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > >> Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> >I don't think so but I don't think it will use cygwin's address anyway. > >> > >> Ok. Maybe Corinna should do the same for openssl? > > > >What? Why? OpenSSL uses another base address already in the Makefile > >(0x63000000). > > Do we need to coordinate this among all package maintainers, maybe? > Maybe we could publish a list of all of the dlls in the system along > with standard base addresses for each and ask that maintainers make > sure that their DLL complies with the base address. > > The more I think about this, the more I believe that we shouldn't have > to continually tell users to run rebaseall. Setting the base address > is something that should be done once, by the maintainer, not every > time a person installs a package. Amen, but before we setup a centralized database can we evaluate if --enable-auto-image-base suffices? For example, does it currently lead to any collision? Pierre
