RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Sat Jul 9 00:42:00 GMT 2011
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 02:01 +0200, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Am 09.07.2011 00:41, schrieb Yaakov (Cygwin/X):
> > Modifying cygport(1), cygport(5)s, and other build scripts in some
> > fashion is inevitable for any of these solutions. The only way to avoid
> > that would be to not support multilib in any form. Since it seems I've
> > been outvoted on *that* point, the only question is finding which method
> > of multilib support which is the least painful.
> I share cgf's concerns here and your hint isn't comforting me. It would
> mean that any package maintainer would have to modify scripts or
> makefiles unless they use cygport - which not all do. Well, I don't
> anyway. This would be asking for trouble.
I never said that. If we support multilib, then *all* build scripts
will need to be modified in some way, including .cygport(5)s.
> Please don't introduce cygport as mandatory through a backdoor.
Nobody's doing that, but you really should give it a try. :-)
More information about the Cygwin-developers