This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon at yandex dot ru>
- To: Nicholas Clark <nicholas dot clark at gmail dot com>, cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:44 +0300
- Subject: Re: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKNeuBrRbQXfQJE7SGAAuK3s7ff-hcghu9tv39==O_ktJz33_w at mail dot gmail dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Greetings, Nicholas Clark!
> I remember seeing a bunch of traffic on the subject of rebasing a few
> years ago, with people saying that it wouldn't be necessary once we
> moved over to 64-bit Cygwin. Did that wind up being true?
I see no reason to think otherwise. 64*bit address space is much leaner on the
However, the very process of rebasing the applications has nothing to do with
Apps are built on different machines, and their address space may collide,
when they meet on one target system.
64-bit platform just offer more space, meaning that more applications can be
installed that rely on POSIX address space semantics.
Still, you should only install what you are actually using.
> I've got some in-house tools that some of our developers want to use
> on Cygwin, and I've been thinking about the best way to maintain
> remote installations. If I use some kind of scripted
> deployment/update, do I actually need to keep everything rebased?
setup.exe offer all the tools you need for automatic installation.
With best regards,
Monday, August 3, 2015 22:12:38
Sorry for my terrible english...
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple