This patch adjusts the EXE name, ini/bz2 name, registry calls, and
default Cygwin root for x86_64. For now, setup64.exe is x86_64 only,
but hopefully this should allow a future patch to allow switching
based on command-line option or additional preference page to be
minimally invasive.
--
Yaakov
On Mar 13 15:06, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> This patch adjusts the EXE name, ini/bz2 name, registry calls, and
> default Cygwin root for x86_64. For now, setup64.exe is x86_64 only,
> but hopefully this should allow a future patch to allow switching
> based on command-line option or additional pre
On 3/14/2013 10:17 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 13 15:06, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
This patch adjusts the EXE name, ini/bz2 name, registry calls, and
default Cygwin root for x86_64. For now, setup64.exe is x86_64 only,
but hopefully this should allow a future patch to allow switching
base
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:08:01 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
> how far we are from the 64bit setup release ?
>
> I miss the dependency check of cygport ;-)
The setup code is ready to ship for 64bit; what's needed now is setting
up a cronjob to generate the setup64.ini. Hopefully that can be done
soon
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:28:47AM -0500, Yaakov wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:08:01 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
>>how far we are from the 64bit setup release ?
>>
>>I miss the dependency check of cygport ;-)
>
>The setup code is ready to ship for 64bit; what's needed now is setting
>up a cronjob t
On 3/17/2013 7:27 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:28:47AM -0500, Yaakov wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:08:01 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
how far we are from the 64bit setup release ?
I miss the dependency check of cygport ;-)
The setup code is ready to ship for 64bit;
On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:28:47AM -0500, Yaakov wrote:
> >On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 07:08:01 +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
> >>how far we are from the 64bit setup release ?
> >>
> >>I miss the dependency check of cygport ;-)
> >
> >The setup code is ready to shi
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> If we're going to do that then I'd like the actual maintainers to start
>> generating packages rather than random other people. Otherwise chaos
>> will ensue.
>
>I didn't know Yaakov is
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> If we're going to do that then I'd like the actual maintainers to start
>> generating packages rather than random other people. Otherwise chaos
>> will ensue.
>
>I didn't know Yaakov is
On 3/17/2013 5:43 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
If we're going to do that then I'd like the actual maintainers to start
generating packages rather than random other people. Otherwise ch
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Btw, was it announced that Yaakov was working on a complete 64-bit
> release? I knew that this was a possibility but was it actually
> announced that there would be a release area in cygwin's ftp area with
> packages (presumably) buil
On Mar 17 16:27, Yaakov wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > Btw, was it announced that Yaakov was working on a complete 64-bit
> > release? I knew that this was a possibility but was it actually
> > announced that there would be a release area in cygwin's ftp
On Mar 17 12:43, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:35:46AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Mar 17 02:27, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> If we're going to do that then I'd like the actual maintainers to start
> >> generating packages rather than random other people. Otherw
13 matches
Mail list logo