This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:00:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?
- References: <4E0721C7.6000709@users.sourceforge.net> <4E0A02D6.8030300@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110628192153.GJ9552@calimero.vinschen.de> <1309290708.7596.34.camel@YAAKOV04> <4E0A32E6.4010709@redhat.com> <4E0A362D.7070105@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 04:14:37PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 6/28/2011 4:00 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> Can *someone* tell me why this is absolutely necessary? I have yet to
>>> hear a single reason that wouldn't be solved by supporting parallel
>>> installations like we did with 1.5-to-1.7.
>
>Well, given that we *can't* have a (64bit) foo.exe until all of its DLLs
>have been ported to 64bit, I guess there's less worry about a partially
>functioning tree than I had thought. It *will* be partially functioning
>until a large number of DLLs are ported, before many apps are available
>at all.
>
>When in turn means that you'll need to keep a "working" 32bit
>installation usable anyway for quite some time. What that tells me is,
>even IF we supported a single-tree cyg64/32 deployment, I'd still have
>to have a "pure" 32bit co-installed tree somewhere else on my system.
>
>> Also, in 5 years when nobody is running 32 bit windows, will everybody
>> still be happy with all these 64s in their paths and filenames?
>
>How many Fedora or RHE customers complain about /lib64?
Right. And, since we can't do that, the only alternative that I can see
is to use something like cyg64.
Unless we're talking about abandoning Cygwin 32 entirely, I think it
makes sense to try to keep one c:\cygwin\bin .
cgf