RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
Tue Jun 28 07:09:00 GMT 2011
On Jun 28 00:23, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 05:28 +0100, Andy Koppe wrote:
> > To avoid having to port a large part of the distro before 64-bit
> > Cygwin becomes usable, and for more seamless compatibility with users'
> > existing 32-bit binaries and sources than you'd get with a separate
> > Cygwin32 install.
> > Do those benefits outweigh the costs? I don't know.
> I strongly doubt it. Once you get past porting the toolchain and
> lower-level stuff, everything beyond that should be more-or-less a
> rebuild. (Famous last words :-)
> As long as 32-bit and 64-bit installs could exist side-by-side (like we
> had with the 1.5-to-1.7 transition), then I really don't see it being an
I have a different point of view here. As it is, we have a rather low
participation. Yes, we have a number of dedicated maintainers, but for
most of the maintainers it's just the occasional odd job. I don't think
you will get a lot of friends by asking all maintainers to create
packages for two separate distros.
This leaves two ways to handle the problem:
- A buildsystem
Sounds good, but we don't have something like this. We don't have an
infrastructure to set up a build system, not everyone uses the same
way to build packages. In short, we're not as organized as, say,
Fedora and I don't see that we have a big chance to become as
organized. Especially the buildsystem needs dedicated maintainers.
- Keep everything in a single distro.
This is the more realistic option, IMO. Some packages will stick
to 32 bit and not get a 64 bit counterpart for some time. Some
packages will get a 32 and a 64 bit part.
It's a bit early to discuss how mixed packages should exactly look
like. But *my* idea would be that the burden on the maintainers
stays low, and that a user grabs the one-and-only setup.exe and
installs Cygwin just as today.
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
More information about the Cygwin-developers