RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 06/28/2011 01:16 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Does anybody complain about /lib64 and /usr/lib64 on Linux?

No, they complain when two packages include the same headers in 
/usr/include or the same support files in /usr/share.  Are there going 
to be architecture-dependent sub-packages that split these out?  Will 
there be one installer or two?  If just one, how will it need to 
function?  Splitting the installation trees out means less 
infrastructure work is required.  If you want 32 and 64 bit 
installations you run both.  Put the PATH of the other at the end to 
make sure you have access to all the commands (Particularly important 
when getting all the 64 bit packages built).

> Yes.  Non-Cygwin DLLs using the same name as Cygwin DLLs exist, but they
> won't work under Cygwin.  For example, there's a native libz.dll.  If
> that's also the name of the Cygwin DLL it's just a matter of $PATH if a
> Cygwin executable loading libz.dll crashes.  That's why it has been
> decided many years ago that Cygwin DLLs should use another prefix than
> "lib" to avoid collisions with existing native DLLs.

Okay, thanks.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@redhat.com