RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Tue Jun 28 07:24:00 GMT 2011

On Jun 27 20:13, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 17:58 -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> > Today, Cygwin DLLs all have the form cyg$SONAME.dll. In a 64-bit Cygwin,
> > 32-bit DLLs would retain this naming convention and 64-bit DLLs would be
> > named cyg64$SONAME.dll.
> 1) A similar naming scheme for mingw64 was already rejected.
> 2) Accomodating the "cyg" prefix is hard enough; using different naming
> schemes for x86 and x64 would be a disaster.
> I still don't see a pressing need for multilib in the first place.
> Linux distros do it only with a handful of libraries needed for running
> third-party binaries; that use case doesn't really apply to Cygwin, so
> why would we need it? 

On my F15 desktop system I have 124 i686 packages.  It sounds like a
joke compared to the 1810 x86_64 and 445 noarch packages, but it's
still not a neglectable number.

And I still think Cygwin is different due to our low participation and
organization factor.  Just imagine Cygwin had as much backing as Fedora.
For me this would mean I could drop reading the cygwin and cygwin-apps
lists, because I could stick to Cygwin development alone.  I didn't have
to maintain any distro packages.  I wouldn't even have to create the
cygwin package because somebody else did it for me.  Wow, what a dream...


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list