This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 1
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 12:23:44PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 10:46:38AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Mar 3 00:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>> This patch fixes the remaining issues, *except in autoload.c*, for a
>>> 64bit setup.exe. Some notes:
>>> 1) This assumes that 64bit .ini will be named setup64.ini.
>>> 2) This also assumes that 64bit setup will only install 64bit packages
>>> (IOW only use setup64.ini, regardless of argv)
>>> 3) The resulting binary is still named setup.exe, but we'll want to
>>> provide this for download as e.g. setup64.exe. It would be up to
>>> whomever (cgf?) to rename this upon uploading. Alternatively, the
>>> buildsystem could be patched to change the executable name based on
>>It would be helpful if the build system would already care for that.
>Why are we porting setup.exe to 64-bit? It doesn't seem like there are
>any benefits. There is no reason to have two versions that I can see,
>although we will likely want to modify the current setup to choose
>between the two.
>I'd rather just have one setup.exe which gave you the choice to install
>either (or both) distros at install time than to have to clutter the
>web site with "If you're installing 64-bit click here, if you're installing
>32-bit click here".
>We could, of course, add code to make sure that someone isn't installing
>the 64-bit code on a 32-bit system.
Since I foresee a debate about this issue, similar to the initial legacy
1.5 decision, I am going to offer more rationale for why I think it's a
good idea and offer counter arguments to the points that will probably
still be raised regardless.
Bottom line: I think it's a good idea to get real words in front of the
user like "You are running a 64-bit version of Windows. Which version
of Cygwin would you like:".
First objection: "Why should someone who is running a 32-bit version of
Windows be presented with this??? That's as confusing as clicking on
a web link!!!!!"
Response: Don't present the option to people running on 32-bit systems.
Second objection: "I don't want to see an extra dialog box every time I
run setup.exe (which is at least four times a day)!!! I'm already driven
to near apoplexy by having the option to put a link on my desktop every
SINGLE time I run setup.exe"
Response: Have a "remember this choice for next time" check mark on the
dialog box so that you'd only be asked once.
Third objection: "That would never work! What if I change my mind????"
Response: Add a command-line option to setup.exe to force a download of an
arbitrary 64/32 bit version. Update the FAQ with this information as well
as telling the user which registry entry (I think it would have to be a
registry entry) to use to change this behavior.
Fourth objection: "You're insane!!! Now you're going to make it possible
for people to try to install 64-bit Cygwin on a 32-bit system!!! I can
just imagine the mailing list screams!!!"
Response: Only allow downloading 64-bit to a 32-bit system. Make sure
that the user knows that the 64-bit binaries will never work on their
system. There is an added benefit here that a 32-bit user can download
stuff to their system for potential use by other
Fifth objection: "This is a lot of work!!! It's easier to just port setup.exe
Response: That's debatable. We know that converting to 64-bit is not
trivial. Changes will require #ifdef's in the code. It will require
that all mingw64 libraries be installed. It will require installation
of the 64-bit cross compiler. Every setup.exe release will require two
Six objection: "What? You're already talking about complicating the code!!!
A few #ifdef's will be a minor annoyance. And, anyone can install mingw
libraries. It's easy!"
Response: Installing random mingw libraries is not really "easy" for me,
personally, on the linux setup that I have here. It can be done. I
know how to do it. I'd rather not have to install and refresh multiple
libraries if I can avoid it. And, the code complication should be
fairly modular rather than sprinkled throughout the source.
So, in summary, I think that a smart tool which tries to do the right
thing is, better than two similar tools requiring an end-user to make a
choice based on potentially limited knowledge about their system.