On 3/17/2013 10:45, Christopher Faylor wrote:
So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this.
Last time I answered one of your RFCs, I got accused of bikeshedding.
(This was the Win9x EOL issue, a month or so ago. I'm not sure whether
the accusation was directed at me personally, or if I just felt the
tickle of an overly broad brush. But, you asked for comments, you got
more discussion than you wanted, so you stomped off saying you wish
you'd never asked. Makes one wary of answering your RFCs. Makes one
think you'd rather just be BDFL and not ask any more. Just sayin'.)
1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available?
Yes.
3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting
your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs?
Sure. It's a question of round-tuit for me, not a worry over bugs.
As far as I'm concerned, for the first several months, the 64-bit
version can be buggy as hell and still be worthwhile. For now, I'm
happy enough that it *exists*. Stability can come over time.
5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that
it is time for you to stop offering the package?
I'd be happier not having to rebuild everything twice, but I don't see a
way around that given Windows' approach to CPU compatibility.
(Compare OS X, where a single binary can contain code for multiple CPU
types. The program still does get compiled separately for each target,
but the tools all handle this detail for you. You only notice it in
that the compile time goes up by a factor of $ncpus.)
6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for
you?
Sure, if someone wants to. If it gets done, I'm not going to squawk
about *who* got it done.
If that happens and they post their patches, I might then take them and
start releasing both versions.
7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains
your packages built by someone else?
If that's how it has to go, sure.
But to me, "alpha" means "not yet feature complete" in addition to "has
known bugs". I wouldn't even make repo completeness a prerequisite for
getting 64-bit Cygwin out of beta. A certain core set of packages must
be present from the start for the release to be of use, but a great many
more can trickle in over time.
I don't see that my set (ctags, sqlite, expat) are so critical that they
belong in that must-have set. All nice and useful to be sure, but not
exactly Base packages. Two of mine are libraries, so I can see getting
pressure from *other maintainers* to build 64-bit versions so they can
proceed with their builds, where my package's library is a requirement
for their package. That's the level where pressure to release 64-bit
builds should happen for most packages, rather than from the top.
As for packages that aren't dependencies of anything else, pressure
should come from the user base. If no one cares enough about a given
"missing" 64-bit package to complain about it, it shouldn't be a
priority for that maintainer to build it.
