On Jul 3 15:14, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:49:09PM +0200, Achim Gratz wrote: > >Christopher Faylor writes: > >> I don't think that anyone was saying that we want one setup.ini to be > >> able to handle both distributions though. That certainly isn't the way > >> that I've been slowly setting things up on sourceware.org. And, maybe > >> more importantly, I don't like the idea so I'm not apt to implement this > >> in upset or setup. > > > >Good, that closes the discussion as far as I'm concerned. > > > >> What I'm leaning towards doing is creating a new "cache" directory which > >> just contains x86 and x86_64 directories with a setup.ini in each. I'd > >> get rid of the (IMO) stupid mangled site names since I don't think they > >> are really important and just download files directly into > >> x86*/release. > > > >That'd work for me. These days it's probably far less useful to know > >which mirror you downloaded from and more useful to be able to switch to > >a different mirror without having to remember that you also need to > >rename the existing directory in case you don't want to download all > >files again. > > > >> setup.exe would only look in the architecture directory that it cared > >> about for setup.ini, ignoring the other architecture. > > > >OK. > > > >> If it's important than we could have setup do the old stupid way of > >> looking up and down in non-"cache" directories for setup.ini but I think > >> I'd like to retire that behavior. Unfortunately, I don't know who is > >> relying on it. > > > >Everybody currently using Cygwin in conjunction with Ports, I'd think. > > I don't see why. The ports stuff could also go into the mix under the > x86* directories. I presume that now it is only separated by the mirror > name. > > Or, actually, I was also thinking of adding a release tag to setup.ini. > > release: x86 > release: x86_64 > release: cygwinports-x86 > > That could be used to keep the cygwinports stuff separate from the > normal release if it's really needed. > > >> Maybe we could keep a setup-legacy.exe around for a while > >> for people who still need this IMO brain-dead behavior. Or, better, tag > >> CVS and let them build the source themselves if they need this. > > > >I've been building my own setup.exe for some time, but I don't really > >think this is something done often??? > > I didn't say that it was. Popular opinion to the contrary, I don't > think that we have to bend over backwards to support outliers in the use > of tools of setup.exe. This is an open source project so someone can > easily build the package and provide their own version if needed.
Is there really a good reason to break existing functionality? Can't we just get the x86_64 distro up and running for now and possibly not break what's already there? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
