This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [HEADSUP] Please try to build your packages for 64 bit
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:20:20 +0200
- Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Please try to build your packages for 64 bit
- References: <20130419104532 dot GQ7395 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <5175A832 dot 9010600 at towo dot net> <20130423083712 dot GD7763 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <51765E9F dot 3050607 at gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Apr 23 12:12, marco atzeri wrote:
> On 4/23/2013 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >
> >I still think it would make sense to name the packages according to
> >their architecture in future:
> >
> > foo-1.0-1.i686.tar.bz2
> > bar-2.3-4.x86_64.tar.bz
> > baz-5.0-8.noarch.tar.bz2
>
> no objection
>
> >We should also find a simply mechanism to share the noarch packages
> >between the i686 and x86_64 release area, either by adding a noarch
> >dir or by automatic copying or linking the files (or parent dirs)
> >between the i686 and x86_64 release areas.
>
> this will require syncronization between the two versions
> and it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
But isn't that what noarch packages are about? Since they are
architecture-independent you can easily share them. Or do you have an
example where we must have different versions of a noarch package in the
i686 and the x86_64 release?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat