Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/17/2013 12:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes. 2) N/A 3) Yes. 4) No. 5) No. 6) Yes. 7) Yes. -- Chuck
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Hi there! Am 17.03.2013 17:45, schrieb Christopher Faylor: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 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? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? Well, somewhere in between. As I only maintain tftpd which neither has a broad user base nor frequent upstream updates, I only look into Cygwin packaging every now and then. So I'd love to see some "Howto get your package built on 64-bit" instruction. If things are shomehow shaky and unstable, that's no problem, I can happily try and report - but likely I won't have time to dig deeper or provide patches for other packages. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No. 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? As I don't expect too much overhead here: no. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? Don't think this makes sense for tftpd. -- Gernot Siemens CT RTC ITP SDP-DE, Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
> Christopher Faylor writes: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) N/A 3) Yes (in the near future) 4) No 5) No 6) Yes 7) Yes Ciao Volker
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 03/17/2013 10:45 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Not yet. > > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? Yes, as a VM, although I'll probably have to reinstall it every time the trial license expires. > > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? Yes, if I can get a 64-bit Windows vm going. > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? No, I'm willing to try early. > > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? No, although I'm already behind on several of my packages for 32-bit windows. > > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? Yes, if needed. > > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? Yes. > > There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any > insights welcome. > -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com+1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:45:22PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? No. > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? Yes, but I need to purchase it and schedule converting one of PCs from 32- to 64-bit Windows. > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start > porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? I would prefer things to get a little more stable before I start porting. > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think > that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No. > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port > for you? Yes, but I would like to be able to review the changes. > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which > contains your packages built by someone else? Yes. Jason
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Yes > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? Yes > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? Yes, time permitting > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? No > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? No > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? Yes (especially if that person is Yaakov) > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? Yes
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mar 20 15:16, Kai Tietz wrote: > 2013/3/20 Dave Korn schrieb: > > On a related issue, I don't see anything related to cygwin64 in upstream > > GCC. How is 64-bit Cygwin currently being built? Are you using a mingw64 > > compiler and controlling things like startup files and libs linked against > > in > > the command-line? > > I will begin to push patches this week to gcc upstream. It is now > again in stage 1, and well, I would like to let settle down new > sourceware hardware a bit before posting. > You can find most important required patches at > ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/ folder. > The mingw-w64 compiler is required at some places for building > cygwin-base stuff (utils etc), but in general cygwin64-compiler is > used. Just to be clear, the utils Kai is talking about are the non-Cygwin utils from the cygwin utils dir (cygcheck, strace). This isn't different from the 32 bit Cygwin native utils, which now require the 32 bit mingw64 compiler to get a simpler build process. Since you were gone for so long you probably didn't notice that we have switched our w32api to the Mingw-w64 headers and libs, so the 32 and 64 bit Cygwin can be built using the same set of w32api files. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
2013/3/20 Dave Korn schrieb: > On a related issue, I don't see anything related to cygwin64 in upstream > GCC. How is 64-bit Cygwin currently being built? Are you using a mingw64 > compiler and controlling things like startup files and libs linked against in > the command-line? I will begin to push patches this week to gcc upstream. It is now again in stage 1, and well, I would like to let settle down new sourceware hardware a bit before posting. You can find most important required patches at ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/ folder. The mingw-w64 compiler is required at some places for building cygwin-base stuff (utils etc), but in general cygwin64-compiler is used. > (Sorry for being so behind the times. I've got an ~20k backlog of emails > between Cygwin, binutils and GCC.) > > cheers, > DaveK Regards, Kai
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mar 20 15:08, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 20 13:44, Dave Korn wrote: > > On a related issue, I don't see anything related to cygwin64 in upstream > > GCC. How is 64-bit Cygwin currently being built? Are you using a mingw64 > > compiler and controlling things like startup files and libs linked against > > in > > the command-line? > > We have a Linux cross compiler 4.8.0 based, and native gcc's 4.8.0 > and 4.9.0 based. I screwed up the versions. Both toolchains, Linux and native, were using svn HEAD at the time of building. SO the native toolchain is 4.8.0 from May 7th and the Linux toolchain is 4.9.0 from May 19th. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mar 20 13:44, Dave Korn wrote: > On a related issue, I don't see anything related to cygwin64 in upstream > GCC. How is 64-bit Cygwin currently being built? Are you using a mingw64 > compiler and controlling things like startup files and libs linked against in > the command-line? We have a Linux cross compiler 4.8.0 based, and native gcc's 4.8.0 and 4.9.0 based. The reason the patches are not upstream yet is that we were waiting for 4.8 being branched and the opening of the stage 1 season for 4.9. That apparently happened over the last weekend, so Kai will send the patches upstream starting this week. The basic set of patches to build an x86_64-pc-cygwin GCC are here: ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/x86_64-pc-cygwin-gcc-20130319.patch The Linux cross is here: ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/binary-toolchain-x86_64-pc-linux-x-x86_64-pc-cygwin-20130319.tar.xz The native compiler is either here: ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/install/base-cygwin-toolchain-install-first-20130307.x86_64.tar.xz or here: ftp://cygwin.com/pub/cygwin/64bit/release/gcc/gcc-4.8.0-20130307-cvs-1.tar.bz2 Yaakov also has some additional patches, partially taken from your 32 bit patchset: http://cygwin-ports.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=cygwin-ports/gcc;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/4.8 binutils and gdb patches are already upstream. As for GCC, only C and C++ are working so far, but other than that, we have everything in to build correct x86_64-pc-cygwin binaries. Most importantly, in x86_64-pc-cygwin sizeof(long)==8, and we're using the brand new (thanks to Kai's February efforts) medium code model. For more details, I'd like to point out a few mails on the cygwin-developers list: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2013-02/msg9.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2013-02/msg00027.html http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-developers/2013-03/msg00011.html And especially SKIP all mails in March with the word "segfault" in it's subject... Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17/03/2013 16:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 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? > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? I don't have to wait for it to be completely stable but it'll be a few weeks before I'm able to get up to speed and figure out what's going on. > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? Nope. > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? I don't have any ego issues about it, but don't know what would be involved in this. Is it just a matter of rebuilding with recent cygport? I think I could be able to do that in reasonably short order. On a related issue, I don't see anything related to cygwin64 in upstream GCC. How is 64-bit Cygwin currently being built? Are you using a mingw64 compiler and controlling things like startup files and libs linked against in the command-line? (Sorry for being so behind the times. I've got an ~20k backlog of emails between Cygwin, binutils and GCC.) cheers, DaveK
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
> I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? > > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? > > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? > > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? > > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? (1) Yes (2) N/A (3) Yes, although I don't have a lot of time for it at present. (4) No (5) No (6) Yes (7) Yes I'm happy to build and support 32- and 64-bit versions of all of my packages. I just want the extra packaging work to be as little as possible.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: >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'.) I hope you feel better now after having gotten that off of your chest. I'm very satisfied with the level of thought that has been gone into the answers to this request. Thanks for your response. cgf
RE: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
> From: cygwin-apps-ow...@cygwin.com > > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package > maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? No > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? Not in the short run > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? N/A > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? Yes, preferably with cross-compiling > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is > time for you to stop offering the package? No > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? Yes. It would then make sense for that person to handle both versions. > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? Yes > There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any > insights welcome. Pierre
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) N/A 3) Yes, already in progress 4) No 5) No 6) No 7) Yes Christian
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
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.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/18/2013 10:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Mar 17 12:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes, for obvious reasons, I guess 4) No 5) No 6) Don't care 7) Yes, as is already the case. From my point of view it's more important to have stuff for testing purposes in an early stage. I don't give a damn if the package in the test release is built by me or by Yaakov or any other maintainer who's willing to spent time on the efforts. I Like the last point as expressed so clearly Corinna
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/18/2013 00:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? > Yes. > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? > N/A. > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > Yes. > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? > N/A. > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? > No. > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > No. > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? > No. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mar 17 12:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? > > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? > > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? > > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? > > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes, for obvious reasons, I guess 4) No 5) No 6) Don't care 7) Yes, as is already the case. From my point of view it's more important to have stuff for testing purposes in an early stage. I don't give a damn if the package in the test release is built by me or by Yaakov or any other maintainer who's willing to spent time on the efforts. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Christopher Faylor schreef op 2013-03-17 17:45: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 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? When I have time. 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? No. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? I don't mind. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? No problem. There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. Set up a system like Koji and Bodhi for Fedora. regards, -- Erwin Waterlander http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Cary R. wrote: > > From: NightStrike > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:36 PM > Subject: Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested >>> software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should >>> we have some way of validating this. >> >> This brings up an interesting point, in that I don't have access to a >> 64-bit machine to validate any packages I maintain. Would running a >> 64-bit version of Windows in VM (i.e. virtualbox) be acceptable? >> Having a cross-compiler would be a definite plus because I've found >> VMs to be incredibly slow, so it would be fine for validating but I >> wouldn't want to compile in a VM. > > If you don't actually have a 64-bit machine, then a VM will not help. > You can't virtualize a 64-bit guest on a 32-bit host with either > VMWare, VirtualBox, or VirtualPC. > > Caveat -- the above statement is as of the last time I looked at it. > Things always change. > > --- > > That's not my experience. With VirtualBox on a 32-bit windows XP machine > I run both 32 and 64 bit version of Linux. The underlying hardware needs to > have 64-bit support and you are still limited by the memory that the host OS > can support. > > Cary > "...underlying hardware needs to have 64-bit support..." That's what I meant by "...actually have a 64-bit machine..." I was referring to the physical hardware.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17 March 2013 14:36, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > I also lack a 64-bit Windows OS, but I believe you can download a time > limited trial of Windows8 in 64-bit? Looked in to a it a little further, and it turns out a trial is available: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-ca/evalcenter/jj554510.aspx Unfortunately you have to activate it by August 15th and it only lasts 90 days, so it is of limited use. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17 March 2013 16:36, NightStrike wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested >>> software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should >>> we have some way of validating this. >> >> This brings up an interesting point, in that I don't have access to a >> 64-bit machine to validate any packages I maintain. Would running a >> 64-bit version of Windows in VM (i.e. virtualbox) be acceptable? >> Having a cross-compiler would be a definite plus because I've found >> VMs to be incredibly slow, so it would be fine for validating but I >> wouldn't want to compile in a VM. > > If you don't actually have a 64-bit machine, then a VM will not help. > You can't virtualize a 64-bit guest on a 32-bit host with either > VMWare, VirtualBox, or VirtualPC. Not all machines support it, thankfully my laptop does as I have done it in the past to test apps I have created under 64-bit. Cheers, Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:32:37PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: >Christopher Faylor writes: >> Have you considered the implications of having someone else do your >> packages? That means potentially different setup.hint, potentially >> different versions and version-numbering schemes, and possible >> source-level patches which you have not touched. > >My (maybe faulty) understanding is that 32bit and 64bit will be >completely separate distributions of Cygwin. I'm not sure how much >value it has to try to synchronize them down to the level of version or >even release numbers; that sounds like a lot of extra coordination that >suddenly becomes necessary. Other distros seem to synchronize down to version and release and while I know that may not always be possible I think it is something to strive for. >It would be certainly be more difficult when there are different >maintainers for the same package in the two distributions, so if that >sort of synchronization is a goal, then I agree that the maintainer >should usually be the same person for both distributions. > >Only time will tell how many differences 64bit really triggers in terms >of extra patches and the like. Seeing how much code still assumes >Cygwin == Win32 w/ POSIX this might be a bumpier ride than expected >(although I'm usually having good luck by simply throwing out the >Cygwin-specific code and take the Linux branch). Yep. cgf
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:43:52 +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: > My working assumption is that the differences between the two > architectures can nearly be absorbed by cygport so that a single > definition can be used to produce both packages. I also hope that it > will be possible in the future to cross-compile between 32bit and 64bit, > either direction is fine, but compiling on 32bit may be more practical > at the moment. That is definitely the goal, although obviously some changes to existing .cygport's and patchsets may be required. A 32-to-64 toolchain will be ready very soon; the reverse is a lower priority at the moment. Yaakov
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 2013-03-17 17:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1. yes, I have Win64 2. n/a 3. yes, I'm already done porting, I'm just waiting for optional dependencies to show up 4. no, I don't want to wait, Cygwin64 is faster, so I want it asap 5. no, one more arch is fine by me 6. no, I want to maintain my packages for Cygwin64 7. no, there's no need for a separate 64-bit maintainer Re 3, I actually needed to patch the src package of that missing optional dependency (aalib) to make it build, and was wondering if *I* should offer it for 64-bit or if I should poke the maintainer (hello Volker, I have a small patch for you), so yes, this discussion is indeed needed... Cheers, Peter
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested >> software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should >> we have some way of validating this. > > This brings up an interesting point, in that I don't have access to a > 64-bit machine to validate any packages I maintain. Would running a > 64-bit version of Windows in VM (i.e. virtualbox) be acceptable? > Having a cross-compiler would be a definite plus because I've found > VMs to be incredibly slow, so it would be fine for validating but I > wouldn't want to compile in a VM. If you don't actually have a 64-bit machine, then a VM will not help. You can't virtualize a 64-bit guest on a 32-bit host with either VMWare, VirtualBox, or VirtualPC. Caveat -- the above statement is as of the last time I looked at it. Things always change.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/17/2013 5:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) N/A 3) already done 4) No 5) No 6) Not needed 7) Not needed There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. cgf Regards Marco
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17 March 2013 13:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: > You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested > software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should > we have some way of validating this. This brings up an interesting point, in that I don't have access to a 64-bit machine to validate any packages I maintain. Would running a 64-bit version of Windows in VM (i.e. virtualbox) be acceptable? Having a cross-compiler would be a definite plus because I've found VMs to be incredibly slow, so it would be fine for validating but I wouldn't want to compile in a VM. > If we could (this is just pie-in-the-sky speculating) drum up funding > for a 64-bit version of Windows would you be willing to install it? I also lack a 64-bit Windows OS, but I believe you can download a time limited trial of Windows8 in 64-bit? Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Christopher Faylor writes: > Have you considered the implications of having someone else do your > packages? That means potentially different setup.hint, potentially > different versions and version-numbering schemes, and possible > source-level patches which you have not touched. My (maybe faulty) understanding is that 32bit and 64bit will be completely separate distributions of Cygwin. I'm not sure how much value it has to try to synchronize them down to the level of version or even release numbers; that sounds like a lot of extra coordination that suddenly becomes necessary. It would be certainly be more difficult when there are different maintainers for the same package in the two distributions, so if that sort of synchronization is a goal, then I agree that the maintainer should usually be the same person for both distributions. Only time will tell how many differences 64bit really triggers in terms of extra patches and the like. Seeing how much code still assumes Cygwin == Win32 w/ POSIX this might be a bumpier ride than expected (although I'm usually having good luck by simply throwing out the Cygwin-specific code and take the Linux branch). Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17/03/13 17:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: If we could (this is just pie-in-the-sky speculating) drum up funding for a 64-bit version of Windows would you be willing to install it? I'm just in the throws of putting together a new PC right now - a big Fedora 18 / Win7 / WinXP multiboot. Sadly, the OEM copy of Win7 Pro I was supplied with is 32-bit only (even though the processor is 64-bit). I could switch to 64-bit Win7, but I'd need to buy a licence quite quickly. So, if you need me to install a 64-bit version of Win7 then I would need to know in the next few days before I get too far into this project. Your offer to drum up funding is very kind, but it may present more problems than it solves. For instance, I don't know if I would have to declare it for tax purposes. Also, Cygwin maintainers are on different continents, and I don't know if that would give us a problem with import / export restrictions. IANAL. That said, depending on how many maintainers need 64-bit licences, there may be some economies of scale. However, for my timescales, I'll probably just bite the bullet and buy one myself - but please let me know soon. Cheers, Dave.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 06:43:52PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: >> 1) Yes. >> 2) N/A >> 3) Yes (but not in the next two or three weeks). >> 4) No. >> 5) No. >> 6) Yes, as long as they don't pretend to be me. >> 7) Yes, if that helps to speed up things. > >My working assumption is that the differences between the two >architectures can nearly be absorbed by cygport so that a single >definition can be used to produce both packages. I also hope that it >will be possible in the future to cross-compile between 32bit and 64bit, >either direction is fine, but compiling on 32bit may be more practical >at the moment. Have you considered the implications of having someone else do your packages? That means potentially different setup.hint, potentially different versions and version-numbering schemes, and possible source-level patches which you have not touched. It's perfectly ok if all of these are perfectly ok with you but I wouldn't want people to just assume that there won't be issues with someone else (it looks like Yaakov has been annointed) generating packages. Certainly no one could ever suggest that Yaakov doesn't know what he's doing but there will be issues and I would rather that people are aware of them now rather than later. And, if possible, I'd think maintainers should have some signoff on what gets released. cgf
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:42:53PM +, David Stacey wrote: >On 17/03/13 16:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? >> >> 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? >> >> 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting >> your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? >> >> 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before >> attempting anything? >> >> 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that >> it is time for you to stop offering the package? >> >> 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for >> you? >> >> 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains >> your packages built by someone else? > >1) No. > >2) Install one - yes, I could do that. Pay for one - well, I'd rather >not have to! Was hoping we could cross-compile. You certainly could but that would mean that you'd be releasing untested software for 64-bit. Is that something that we want to endorse or should we have some way of validating this. If we could (this is just pie-in-the-sky speculating) drum up funding for a 64-bit version of Windows would you be willing to install it? cgf
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
> 1) Yes. > 2) N/A > 3) Yes (but not in the next two or three weeks). > 4) No. > 5) No. > 6) Yes, as long as they don't pretend to be me. > 7) Yes, if that helps to speed up things. My working assumption is that the differences between the two architectures can nearly be absorbed by cygport so that a single definition can be used to produce both packages. I also hope that it will be possible in the future to cross-compile between 32bit and 64bit, either direction is fine, but compiling on 32bit may be more practical at the moment. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ SD adaptation for Waldorf Blofeld V1.15B11: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 17/03/13 16:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) No. 2) Install one - yes, I could do that. Pay for one - well, I'd rather not have to! Was hoping we could cross-compile. 3+4) I imagine that the act of porting all of our packages will uncover bugs that will then make Cygwin64 more stable. This is probably a chicken and egg situation. 5) Hopefully not. 6+7) Don't mind. Cheers, Dave.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:54:13PM +0100, Thomas Wolff wrote: >(Do you want all responses to the list in this case?) Unless you have something you want to say which you'd rather not have archived on the list, yes. Otherwise, send me personal email to me at-sign cgf period cx. cgf
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/17/2013 12:45 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Yes. 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? N/A 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? Yes. I've already started. 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? No. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No. 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? Only if I'm unavailable for some reason. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? If necessary, but that's unlikely. Ken
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/17/2013 9:45 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will > impact package maintainers. > > So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. > > 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? > > 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? > > 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting > your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? > > 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before > attempting anything? > > 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that > it is time for you to stop offering the package? > > 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for > you? > > 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains > your packages built by someone else? > > There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any > insights welcome. 1) Yes 2) N/A 3) Yes, but ... 4) ... I'd prefer to wait until it was installable through setup. 5) No. 6) No. 7) No. In general, I intend to maintain my packages for 32 and 64-bit Cygwin, but I don't have the time right now to do much troubleshooting. So, I'm trying to wait until the toolchain is easy to install through setup and the method of building 32/64 bit packages through cygport is well understood. -- David Rothenberger daver...@acm.org Andrea's Admonition: Never bestow profanity upon a driver who has wronged you. If you think his window is closed and he can't hear you, it isn't and he can.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Am 17.03.2013 17:45, schrieb Christopher Faylor: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 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? yes 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? yes There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. I would appreciate the package to be buildable out-of-the-box, preferably by simply using "make " on the respective architecture (as a default), and maybe adjusting its name. I would *not* appreciate being urged to move to cygport on this occasion (not that it would not be useful but it has its drawbacks, in terms of having to apprehend its usage and versioning tweaks first...). cgf Answering these questions myself: ... (Do you want all responses to the list in this case?) -- Thomas
Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. cgf Answering these questions myself: 1) Yes. 2) N/A 3) Yes. 4) No. 5) No. 6) Definitely not. 7) No.
