This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: x86/ -> ./ symlink
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:31:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: x86/ -> ./ symlink
- References: <878v1zo0q6 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20130629080152 dot GU2378 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20130629164600 dot GA1479 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130629175908 dot GA5778 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <20130630093846 dot GA2000 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:38:46AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jun 29 13:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:46:00PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:01:52AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> >>On Jun 24 19:52, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> >>> May I suggest that this sort of link (and the similar one in
>> >>> cygwinports) has potential to break mirror scripts in bad ways? Not
>> >>> quite as bad, but linking x86_64 -> 64bit also results in duplicates
>> >>> that aren't serving a good purpose.
>> >>The x86 symlink break the "Install from directory" function of
>> >>setup.exe. It runs into some endless loop. If I remove the symlinks it
>> >>works as usual. I don't know why it does that at all. It has no
>> >>business reading these symlinks. If nobody beats me to it, I'll
>> >>investigate next week.
>> >Are you saying that this is happening with a CVS version of setup.exe?
>No, this occurs with the current 2.774 version from the home page.
>> >If not, it seems impossible that this symlink would cause an issue on a
>> >local install.
>> >Or, maybe you're copying the whole release area to your work area as
>> >you proposed in the cygwin list.
>We're using a local mirror and "Install from directory" from the local
>mirror for many, many years and it always worked fine.
I'm still investigating this behavior.
>The 64 bit 2.802 executable SEGVs immediately at startup.
That one should be fixed. I'm not sure why it didn't SEGV on 32-bit
too. Different stack layout I guess.