RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net
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. :-)


Yaakov




More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list