From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4417 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 18:59:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 4403 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2014 18:59:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net Received: from out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net (HELO out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net) (62.24.202.75) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:59:10 +0000 X-SMTPAUTH: drstacey@tiscali.co.uk X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBABCjQVNPRt57/2dsb2JhbAANS8Uhgw6BK4MZAQEBAwE4QAYLCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAYdtqFSjCxeOeBaEIgSuSw X-IPAS-Result: ApMBABCjQVNPRt57/2dsb2JhbAANS8Uhgw6BK4MZAQEBAwE4QAYLCxgJFg8JAwIBAgFFEwgBAYdtqFSjCxeOeBaEIgSuSw Received: from 79-70-222-123.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com (HELO [192.168.1.5]) ([79.70.222.123]) by out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net with ESMTP; 06 Apr 2014 19:59:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5341A3F5.2040506@tiscali.co.uk> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:59:00 -0000 From: David Stacey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 64-bit: Missing perl modules References: <534078A2.4000601@tiscali.co.uk> <87bnwf2cjl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <534174C4.5010608@tiscali.co.uk> <87y4zi1kib.fsf@Rainer.invalid> In-Reply-To: <87y4zi1kib.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00011.txt.bz2 On 06/04/14 17:38, Achim Gratz wrote: > David Stacey writes: >> Thank you for your reply. Yes, I was aware of that discussion. I'm not >> talking about breaking up 'perl_vendor' for 32-bit Cygwin (although >> IMHO that would be a good thing in the long term). I'd just like to >> see the perl modules I mentioned adding to 64-bit Cygwin - and I'm >> happy to maintain those packages myself if no-one else want to claim >> ownership. > I don't see why it should be a good idea to have different packaging for > the two architectures, so I still think this issue needs to be decided. Agreed. Hopefully the different collections of perl modules that are available in the two architectures can be unified with the next perl release. > Anyway, here's what I have: Yes, those are more or less identical to the packages that I prepared - I could have done with those links a few days ago :-) It's rather nice (albeit inefficient) to have two people trying to do the same thing - so often in open source programmes no-one has the time! You've obviously put some thought and effort into this, so I'm happy to step back and let you (or Reini) to maintain these perl modules. The important thing is that they end up in 64-bit Cygwin at some point. Thankfully, cygport makes most perl modules absurdly easy to maintain. So if you need someone to adopt a few if and when 'perl_vendor' gets split up then please let me know. Dave.