Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Christopher Faylor schreef op 2013-03-17 17:45: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Yes 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? When I have time. 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? No. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? I don't mind. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? No problem. There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. Set up a system like Koji and Bodhi for Fedora. regards, -- Erwin Waterlander http://waterlan.home.xs4all.nl/
Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 2
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 area with packages (presumably) built by him? I don't recall seeing any email about this. It seems like this deserved a message to cygwin-apps with a clear subject discussing what was happening. What's happening right now is just bootstrapping. Corinna released her 64bit toolchain for the first time five weeks ago, and the ABI stabilized (I hope) less than two weeks ago. Since then, we've been working to get enough packages built to enable basic usage and development, so that others could test, and start building other packages for, x86_64. We're now at the point that both cygwin and gcc can be built natively, and cygport git master is functional. Of course, there are still bugs to be fixed and probably more that have yet to be found, but I believe we will soon be in the position to help maintainers with porting their packages to x86_64 in a few ways: 1) For those with 64bit systems and a sense of adventure, they'll be able to build natively once their packages' dependencies are available. 2) A 32-to-64 bit toolchain with all the available libraries is already in Ports and can soon be moved into the distro. Maintainers with cross-compilable packages will be able to cross-build 64bit packages with `cygport --64' once things stabilize. 3) Otherwise, we'll find a way to proxy build packages for x86_64. Maintainers will still drive the development of their packages while others take care of the actual build. (Which, when you think about it, is exactly what happens with other binary Linux distributions.) The goal is that a single .cygport and patchset (when needed) will work for both i686 and x86_64, and that the packages in both distros will end up having identical versions of all packages. Obviously some changes will be need all around to make that happen, but that is certainly the goal AFAIAC. Like Yaakov said. It would still be nice if we could get an upset running on the 64bit/release test area for those who are actively testing and contributing even if this is not official. It would be very helpful testing even in this early stage. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: [PATCH] setup: port to 64-bit, part 2
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. Otherwise chaos will ensue. I didn't know Yaakov is a random person. I'll attempt to not follow your lead and respond to this matter-of-factly rather than hyperbolically: In cygwin-apps, we have Marco and Yaakov discussiong cmake packages. Neither of them is the cmake maintainer. The cmake maintainer isn't even weighing in, AFAICT. In cygwin-developers, we have people discussing dash and perl who are not the maintainers. There are versions of these programs available but I don't think the maintainers have had feedback into the packages. There is also a 64-bit version of binutils, using a different versioning scheme (a new trend), uploaded by someone who is not the binutils maintainer. This is a test release. It's not for the greater public. It's still much too early for that. But we obviously need binutils to be able to build packages natively. These packages are there for testing, not to replace the packages of the original maintainer. Feel free to provide your own packages. If we're thinking about making something that looks like a release then I'd like to do the considerate thing and make sure that the people whose packages you are releasing are ok with what's being done. I, for example, am not ok with making a version of binutils available which uses a different versioning scheme. I don't want to have to worry about that in a future setup.hint file. Downloading and extracting tarballs is, IMO, different than making setup.hint'ed packages available and establishing a new release. If we make a release I think it should be a beta version of an actual 64-bit release rather than something that has to be wiped out and restarted when 64-bit goes live. What exactly speaks against making the life easier of those building and testing packages in this early stage? To run and test the 64bit stuff we need native tools. Most of those native tools exist now in a cygport-built version in the 64bit/release area. We would just like to test and be able to install the packages in a convenient way, nothing else. So, *please*, enable an upset for us working on 64 bit Cygwin, or tell me how to do it myself. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mar 17 12:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes, for obvious reasons, I guess 4) No 5) No 6) Don't care 7) Yes, as is already the case. From my point of view it's more important to have stuff for testing purposes in an early stage. I don't give a damn if the package in the test release is built by me or by Yaakov or any other maintainer who's willing to spent time on the efforts. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/18/2013 00:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Yes. 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? N/A. 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? Yes. 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? N/A. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No. 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? No. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? No. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/18/2013 10:35 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On Mar 17 12:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) Yes, for obvious reasons, I guess 4) No 5) No 6) Don't care 7) Yes, as is already the case. From my point of view it's more important to have stuff for testing purposes in an early stage. I don't give a damn if the package in the test release is built by me or by Yaakov or any other maintainer who's willing to spent time on the efforts. I Like the last point as expressed so clearly Corinna
Re: 64bit: cmake and fortran
On 3/17/2013 7:24 AM, marco atzeri wrote: On 3/17/2013 6:33 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: Since I am still carrying some patches for cmake, I went ahead and uploaded a build; it also depends on the just-uploaded libarchive. Yaakov, qhull built fine with your cmake, thanks Dave / Achim , any news for gfortran ? Regards Marco
aalib and ncurses10
Hi Dr. Volker Zell, the aalib maintainer!
While porting libggi to Cygwin64, I had a small hickup while
building the optional prerequisite aalib, apparently because
of changes in ncurses between v9 and v10. I had to apply the
below patch.
Would you like me to request an upload of an aalib-1.4rc5-11
package for Cygwin64 with the below patch, or are you going
to do so anytime soon?
You can peek at how I envision the -11-src package from
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~peda/cygwin/aalib-1.4rc5-11-src.tar.bz2
Cheers,
Peter
--- origsrc/aalib-1.4.0/src/aacurses.c 2001-04-26 16:37:31.0 +0200
+++ src/aalib-1.4.0/src/aacurses.c 2013-03-14 23:00:48.531414400 +0100
@@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ static void curses_uninit(aa_context * c
{
if (__resized_curses)
curses_uninit(c), curses_init(c-params, NULL,c-driverparams, NULL),
__resized_curses = 0;
-*width = stdscr-_maxx + 1;
-*height = stdscr-_maxy + 1;
+getmaxyx(stdscr, *height, *width);
#ifdef GPM_MOUSEDRIVER
gpm_mx = *width;
gpm_my = *height;
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On 3/17/2013 10:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. Last time I answered one of your RFCs, I got accused of bikeshedding. (This was the Win9x EOL issue, a month or so ago. I'm not sure whether the accusation was directed at me personally, or if I just felt the tickle of an overly broad brush. But, you asked for comments, you got more discussion than you wanted, so you stomped off saying you wish you'd never asked. Makes one wary of answering your RFCs. Makes one think you'd rather just be BDFL and not ask any more. Just sayin'.) 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? Yes. 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? Sure. It's a question of round-tuit for me, not a worry over bugs. As far as I'm concerned, for the first several months, the 64-bit version can be buggy as hell and still be worthwhile. For now, I'm happy enough that it *exists*. Stability can come over time. 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? I'd be happier not having to rebuild everything twice, but I don't see a way around that given Windows' approach to CPU compatibility. (Compare OS X, where a single binary can contain code for multiple CPU types. The program still does get compiled separately for each target, but the tools all handle this detail for you. You only notice it in that the compile time goes up by a factor of $ncpus.) 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? Sure, if someone wants to. If it gets done, I'm not going to squawk about *who* got it done. If that happens and they post their patches, I might then take them and start releasing both versions. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? If that's how it has to go, sure. But to me, alpha means not yet feature complete in addition to has known bugs. I wouldn't even make repo completeness a prerequisite for getting 64-bit Cygwin out of beta. A certain core set of packages must be present from the start for the release to be of use, but a great many more can trickle in over time. I don't see that my set (ctags, sqlite, expat) are so critical that they belong in that must-have set. All nice and useful to be sure, but not exactly Base packages. Two of mine are libraries, so I can see getting pressure from *other maintainers* to build 64-bit versions so they can proceed with their builds, where my package's library is a requirement for their package. That's the level where pressure to release 64-bit builds should happen for most packages, rather than from the top. As for packages that aren't dependencies of anything else, pressure should come from the user base. If no one cares enough about a given missing 64-bit package to complain about it, it shouldn't be a priority for that maintainer to build it.
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
Christopher Faylor wrote: I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? 1) Yes 2) N/A 3) Yes, already in progress 4) No 5) No 6) No 7) Yes Christian
RE: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
From: cygwin-apps-ow...@cygwin.com I'd like to have a feel for how the 64-bit version of Cygwin will impact package maintainers. So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. 1) Do you have a 64-bit version of Windows available? No 2) If no, would you be willing to install one? Not in the short run 3) Are you willing to download the current 64-bit Cygwin and start porting your stuff, knowing that there are still bugs? N/A 4) Or, would you rather wait for 64-bit to be completely stable before attempting anything? Yes, preferably with cross-compiling 5) Does the existence of two different architectures make you think that it is time for you to stop offering the package? No 6) Would you be willing to have another person doing the 64-bit port for you? Yes. It would then make sense for that person to handle both versions. 7) Are you ok with a 64-bit alpha release being made available which contains your packages built by someone else? Yes There are probably other considerations that I haven't thought of. Any insights welcome. Pierre
Re: Maintainers please weigh in on 64-bit Cygwin
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Warren Young wrote: On 3/17/2013 10:45, Christopher Faylor wrote: So, I'd appreciate some discussion about this. Last time I answered one of your RFCs, I got accused of bikeshedding. (This was the Win9x EOL issue, a month or so ago. I'm not sure whether the accusation was directed at me personally, or if I just felt the tickle of an overly broad brush. But, you asked for comments, you got more discussion than you wanted, so you stomped off saying you wish you'd never asked. Makes one wary of answering your RFCs. Makes one think you'd rather just be BDFL and not ask any more. Just sayin'.) I hope you feel better now after having gotten that off of your chest. I'm very satisfied with the level of thought that has been gone into the answers to this request. Thanks for your response. cgf
