On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 10:46:38 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Mar 3 00:46, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > > 3) The resulting binary is still named setup.exe, but we'll want to > > provide this for download as e.g. setup64.exe. It would be up to > > whomever (cgf?) to rename this upon uploading. Alternatively, the > > buildsystem could be patched to change the executable name based on > > $host_cpu. > > It would be helpful if the build system would already care for that.
OK. > > 4) I could #ifndef much more legacy support code, but with the recent > > removal of legacy packages from sourceware, are we going to just > > remove all that from setup? > > IMHO, yes. Let's get rid of all that old cruft. This also allows to > get rid of autoload in setup entirely. All of the autoloaded entry > points exist on all supported systems. For the setup tool we should > really just link against the required DLLs and be done with it. Based on your recent commit to cygwin-64bit-branch, are we dropping support for Win2K as well? cgf, do you concur with removing the legacy support code? Yaakov
