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
