On 26.10.2010 19:24, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 26.10.2010 17:41, Loritsch, Berin wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ulrich Eckhardt [mailto:eckhardt_at_satorlaser.com]
>>>
>>> Well, not everyone is even aware of the differences between
>>> 32 and 64 bit. I wouldn't know it myself if I wasn't reading
>>> this list. Further, while I develop software on MS Windows,
>>> some TSVN users here don't, they just use it for versioning
>>> of arbitrary files.
>>
>> That's why I suggested bundling both 32bit and 64bit versions into the
>> 64bit installer, or having the one installer know enough to do that for
>> you. But that idea got shot down. Until there are 64bit versions of
>> every app, we will continue to have this awkward behavior. I guess you
>> can blame MS if you want. There's no concept of a fat binary for
>> Windows, which is the approach Mac used to 64bit enable all their
>> applications and transition from Motorolla to Intel processors.
>
> See here:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/heaths/archive/2008/01/15/different-packages-are-required-for-different-processor-architectures.aspx
Maybe we've done something wrong, but for TortoiseHg (a Mercurial GUI
for Windows and Linux) we install both a 32 bit and a 64 bit shell
extension on 64 bit Windows -- from the same installer (msi). And it
works. (BTW, that installer contains both the 32 bit and the 64 bit
TortoiseOverlays handler merge modules (as provided by the TortoiseSVN
Project)).
Although the TortoiseHg GUI (and mercurial command line) programs
themselves are 32 bit only even for 64 bit platforms, so we don't really
have a *full* 64 bit TortoiseHg.
[1] http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/downloads/
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2675787
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-10-26 20:09:53 CEST