Re: Let's get a new release out in the next week

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 4:18 PM Geoff Westcott via xmltv-devel
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm tempted to call the 32-bit version "xmltv32.exe" to differentiate it from "xmltv.exe".
>
> Q for the group: What do you think? Is this useful / Will it just confuse people?

In some ideal world, the app would be packaged in MSIX
bundle format, which is architecture independent (by
having multiple architectural dependent binaries included).
But AFAIK Strawberry perl and PAR-Packer does not
directly support creating such apps at this time, although
it might be possible to use the Microsoft MSIX tooling to
do so[0].

So, what I have seen for other software which has a need
to ship multiple architectures/bitness is that the 32-bit
version was just APP, and the 64-bit version was APP-64bit
(I have also seen the opposite, where the 64-bit, is just APP
and the 32-bit version is APP-32bit; probably a reflection
that most people with recent systems are now 64-bit[1]).
I have also seen names such as APP-x86 or APP-x64 to
reflect the architecture (and maybe, one day, APP-arm64
for an arm build?).

However, my primary use of Windows is to spin up a VM
once a year to install and run a very specific app to
generate a submission to my government (due by April
15th each year), so my Windows usage and expectation
is likely not entirely relevant to the Windows XMLTV
community and their expectations.

While my first inclining is to name the 32-bit version
xmltv-x86.exe, and leave the non-suffixed version
being 64-bit, would that cause confusion if the
project did not also have a xmltv-x64 version?






[0] A possible future project for someone who is highly
     Windows packaging fluent (or wants to be?)

[1] According to some usage info from a few years ago,
     Windows 32-bit users were down around 0.5%, and
     half of that number was Windows 7 users, who may
     have finally moved on as Windows 7 has reached
     end of life/support since that survey was reported.