Any chance to get the Windows binary as x64 also? Thanks for Fossil.
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Roy Keene <fos...@rkeene.org> wrote: > I'd vote for x86_64 or amd64 (or even EM64T), but not "x64" (which is > gibberish). > > On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 2/20/17, Emil Totev <em...@tot-consult.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at >>> fossil's web site. >>> >>> File fossil-linux-x86-1.37.tar.gz contains a x64 (64-bit) executable. >>> There seems to be no 32-bit linux executable download. >>> >>> Could someone please fix that for this and future builds? >>> >> >> I suspect that the Mac and OpenBSD builds are 64-bits too. I suppose >> we could produce 32-bit binaries, but I worry that they would be >> largely untested, since I use 64-bit machines almost exclusively, as I >> suspect most of the other Fossil developers do as well. If you really >> need a 32-bit binary, you can always build your own use the source >> tarball, right? >> >> Or, perhaps you are simply asking that the downloads be relabeled from >> "x86" to "x64"? >> >> -- >> D. Richard Hipp >> d...@sqlite.org >> _______________________________________________ >> fossil-users mailing list >> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> >> _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
