RFC: Cygwin 64 bit?

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 06/28/2011 12:51 PM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> Can *someone* tell me why this is absolutely necessary?  I have yet to
> hear a single reason that wouldn't be solved by supporting parallel
> installations like we did with 1.5-to-1.7.

Also, in 5 years when nobody is running 32 bit windows, will everybody 
still be happy with all these 64s in their paths and filenames? 
Coinstalled trees make sense to me, c;\cygwin and c:\cygwin64 for 
example.  And while assumptions are being challenged, do DLLs really 
need to have a cyg prefix?

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@redhat.com