Re: x86/ -> ./ symlink

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

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