Mail Archives: cygwin/2021/10/27/19:36:47
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:04:16PM +0200, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Hi Peter,
Greetings, Thomas,
> Am 27.10.2021 um 18:46 schrieb Peter A. Castro:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:37:26AM +0200, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> >
> > Greetings, Thomas,
> >
> > > Am 27.10.2021 um 10:49 schrieb Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin:
> > > > On Oct 27 09:24, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 22:55:01 +0200
> > > > > Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > > We're also planning to drop Support for the 32 bit release of Cygwin in
> > > > > > 2022, thus Cygwin 3.4.0 won't come in 32 bit anymore, and the package
> > > > > > maintainers won't have to update 32 bit packages anymore. If you're
> > > > > > still running Cygwin under WOW64, consider to move to 64 bit in the next
> > > > > > couple of months.
> > > > > I agree with you that 32 bit cygwin under WOW64 is not worth to
> > > > > support any more. However, 32 bit version of Windows 10 will be
> > > > > still supported at least until Oct. 2025. Personally, I think it
> > > > > would not be nice to exclude the supported windows version from
> > > > > cygwin support.
> > > > Well, it's not much effort to support WOW64 if we support 32 bit anyway.
> > > > The problem is that Cygwin is somehow outgrowing 32 bit systems in terms
> > > > of the available memory. Also, 32 bit Cygwin is still using a 32 bit
> > > > time_t, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
> > > >
> > > > Per the download statistics, as far as those statistics are trustable,
> > > > 32 bit systems are less than 5% of the installed base, with the majority
> > > > of them being WOW64 installations. Those can move over to 64 bit Cygwin
> > > > easily.
> > > >
> > > > Less than 1% are real 32 bit systems.
> > > I think roughly 1% is still a community to consider. Working old machines
> > > shouldn't be trashed just because they are missing a few bits :)
> > >
> > > > Dropping 32 bit support will reduce code complexity in Cygwin and it will
> > > > reduce the workload of the package maintainers.
> > > Code complexity was also an argument when dropping XP support, but there was
> > > quite some discussion at its time.
> > > For `egrep "# *if.*(32|64)"` I'm counting roughly 160 matches in winsup, but
> > > only in a few files. Is it really necessary?
> > >
> > > > Those few still running
> > > > Cygwin on a real 32 bit system will still have a chance to run Cygwin
> > > > by utilizing Peter's time machine.
> > > Peter's time machine is a very appreciable effort. It's a bit fiddly though to figure out how to use it, particularly to identify the "latest XP version". Maybe some explicit howto could be published on the cygwin pages?
> > Could you please give an example of the "fiddly" bit? I list the URLs
> > to use with the install and it's clearly labeled "The last version of
> > Cygwin that supports XP is 2.5.2-1". Or were you, perhaps, refering to
> > the actual usage of the URL in the Setup program?
> On http://www.crouchingtigerhiddenfruitbat.org/Cygwin/timemachine.html, I
> see a setup link and a repository URL.
> If I run that setup and enter the URL on the mirror selection page, I get an
> error popup
> ---------------------------
> Cygwin Setup
> ---------------------------
> Can't open /software/windows/cygwin32/x86_64/setup.xz.sig for reading: No
> such file or directory
> ---------------------------
> OK
> ---------------------------
> So I should have deselected the preselected repository explicitly. If I fix
> that or click the popup off a few times, there's another popup
> ---------------------------
> Cygwin Setup
> ---------------------------
> Unable to get http://ctm.crouchingtigerhiddenfruitbat.org/pub/cygwin/circa/64bit/2016/08/30/104235/x86_64/setup.xz.sig
> from <http://ctm.crouchingtigerhiddenfruitbat.org/pub/cygwin/circa/64bit/2016/08/30/104235/>
> ---------------------------
> OK
> ---------------------------
> repeatedly.
I see.
Yes, that is the setup signature file. At the top of the timemachine
webpage there is a note is bold saying:
"NOTE: Please remember to use the '-X' option when running setup!! (See
update 08/05/2008 for details)."
Now, it could be that setup is ignoring that option or that that option
doesn't fully bypass the check for the signature file. It used to and I
though it still does, but perhaps, that functionality has change? Need
to ask Jon about that.
> The command line you mentioned in the other mail does not seem to work
> either. The 32-bit version works (from the command line only). Also setup
> suggests my existing cygwin installation as its installation target which
> needs to be fixed carefully to avoid destruction...
So, that is an issue with how setup is invoked. Running from the
command line and using the -X works, as you say, but staring it from an
icon doesn't give you any option to supply the -X. so, yes, I can see
that is a problem, but I don't have a way around it.
So, yes, I agree this is a little "fiddly" as you claim.
> > Another user, Michel, responded that perhaps a more explicit message
> > with exact steps for install this might be helpful (as the "Dead Simple
> > Instructions" are generic), but I'm not sure it's really necessary. Is
> > that, perhaps, what you are refering to in that the instructions aren't
> > explicit enough?
> An explicit quote of a safely working command line invocation would
> certainly help.
I'll take that under advisement and see what I can do.
Thank you for the feedback!
> Best greetings
> Thomas
>
> --
> Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
--
--=> Peter A. Castro
Email: doctor at fruitbat dot org / Peter dot Castro at oracle dot com
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
--
Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -