This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Resurrect discussion: Mixing 32 and 64 bit distro


On 2/15/2013 5:22 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
So we have five voices for keeping 64 and 32 bit separate, one for
mixing, one undecided but now leaning towards keeping it separate.  I
also asked two people off-list, and both of them thought it a good idea
to keep the distros separate.

I'm inclined to revert or tweak a couple of my patches which were meant
to mix the distros.  My implied question to you for each of these points
is, shall I do that or not?

I realize I'm chiming in late here, but I'm going to shock everybody and actually *agree* with Yaakov. Add another vote for keeping 64 and 32 completely separate -- I believe its actually LESS of a long-term maintenance nightmare, because it avoids:


a) yet more upstream churn in major packages (Qt, GTK, etc...) that use dlopen() heavily. Even if we modify dlopen to "quick, #if 64bit then check s/lib/cyg64/ first, then s/lib/cyg/, then lib- prefix...; else just check s/lib/cyg, then lib- prefix;" it's still going to be painful.

b) All the shim code, whether in the cygwin runtime DLL, or a shim exe, or a shim "fake" cygwin1.dll, is a fun place for more bugs to hide.

c) All those build systems out there, including cmake (and anyone who uses it), plain-old-makefiles (zlib, libpng), libtool, scons, etc, will all need to be 'taught' about the cyg64 prefix.

vs.

"I can't run stuff from /cygdrive/c/cygwin32/bin when I'm in a cygwin64 shell"

Don't Do That. WJM.

and

"I ran setup64.exe to upgrade my existing (32bit) cygwin installation and now it's all broken."

Don't Do That. WJM.

--
Chuck


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]