On 2017-10-19 08:25, cyg Simple wrote: > On 10/18/2017 7:26 PM, Steven Penny wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:45:11, Marco Atzeri wrote: >>> For a regex pattern you should include both. >>> I do not bore which one is built and distributed on my packages. >>> >>> E.G. on octave >>> >>> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/i686-pc-cygwin >>> /usr/lib/octave/site/oct/x86_64-unknown-cygwin >> >> This is certainly not right. I can understand that we will have some >> discrepancies across packages, but having a different vendor in the same >> package >> is unacceptable. It suggests that x86_64-unknown-cygwin and i686-pc-cygwin >> differ in more ways that one, which they dont. you let it slide, then >> people >> start asking: >> > > I can live with the historical i*-pc-cygwin mishap. > >> - where is x86_64-pc-cygwin? > > This I cannot live with and the package maintainers need to target > x86_64-unknown-cygwin instead. GCC has a target build of > x86_64-pc-cygwin, it needs corrected!
We've been building packages for 64-bit Cygwin for years now without a problem. Maybe you could just tell what you're trying to do and the problem you're seeing so that we can assist you, instead of this circular discussion of a nonexistent problem. -- Yaakov
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature