This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 1

On Mar  3 12:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 12:23:44PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Mar  3 00:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >>> This patch fixes the remaining issues, *except in autoload.c*, for a
> >>> 64bit setup.exe.  Some notes:
> >>> 
> >>> 1) This assumes that 64bit .ini will be named setup64.ini.
> >>> 
> >>> 2) This also assumes that 64bit setup will only install 64bit packages
> >>> (IOW only use setup64.ini, regardless of argv[0])
> >>> 
> >>> 3) The resulting binary is still named setup.exe, but we'll want to
> >>> provide this for download as e.g. setup64.exe.  It would be up to
> >>> whomever (cgf?) to rename this upon uploading.  Alternatively, the
> >>> buildsystem could be patched to change the executable name based on
> >>> $host_cpu.
> >>
> >>It would be helpful if the build system would already care for that.
> >
> >Why are we porting setup.exe to 64-bit?  It doesn't seem like there are
> >any benefits.  There is no reason to have two versions that I can see,
> >although we will likely want to modify the current setup to choose
> >between the two.
> >
> >I'd rather just have one setup.exe which gave you the choice to install
> >either (or both) distros at install time than to have to clutter the
> >web site with "If you're installing 64-bit click here, if you're installing
> >32-bit click here".
> >
> >We could, of course, add code to make sure that someone isn't installing
> >the 64-bit code on a 32-bit system.
> Since I foresee a debate about this issue, similar to the initial legacy
> 1.5 decision, I am going to offer more rationale for why I think it's a
> good idea and offer counter arguments to the points that will probably
> still be raised regardless.

First, since this is plain opinion-based, I think it's easier to present
the choice on the web page rather than in setup.  The name of the tool,
setup64, is a wonderful clue as to what this version installs.

Second, you're missing an important point:  WOW64 has become an optional
component since Windows 2012.  Requiring to have WOW64 installed just
because we neglected to port the installer as well, is lame.  At the
very least we should provide a 64 bit installer as well, even if it's
not used by default.

> Fifth objection:  "This is a lot of work!!!  It's easier to just port setup.exe
> to 64-bit!!!"
> Response: That's debatable.

Yaakov already ported setup to 64 bit.  Only the autoload stuff is
missing and that can simply be deleted anyway.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]