On Apr 22 23:14, Thomas Wolff wrote: > Am 19.04.2013 12:45, schrieb Corinna Vinschen: > >Hi maintainers, > > > > > >the 64 bit Cygwin seems to be quite stable now. We're still suffering > >from a gcc problem which seems to affect C++ inline methods using > >templates, so some C++ packages might not be buildable yet(*), but other > >than that it looks pretty good. > > > >I would like to ask those of you owning a 64 bit Windows machine to have > >a look into the 64 bit distro and to try to build your packages. ... > Is there any plan to distinguish 64 bit binary packages from 32 bit > binary packages by a naming scheme? > That might be useful to avoid accidental confusion e.g. during upload.
We don't do this (yet?), I was simply expecting a "64" somewhere in the subject. I still think it would make sense to name the packages according to their architecture in future: foo-1.0-1.i686.tar.bz2 bar-2.3-4.x86_64.tar.bz baz-5.0-8.noarch.tar.bz2 We should also find a simply mechanism to share the noarch packages between the i686 and x86_64 release area, either by adding a noarch dir or by automatic copying or linking the files (or parent dirs) between the i686 and x86_64 release areas. That would also be helpful for automated uploading, but so far the discussions were not forthcoming. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
