Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784
--- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-01-31 14:15:33 EST ---
(In reply to comment #5) That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake.
I agree with you that x86_64-w64-mingw32 isn't an ideal name, but we've got to do with it for now. While it technically could be made possible to use a different target it will require patching of almost every package and the toolchain itself will divert from upstream. Is that really a direction we should be going..?
How about these names for the source rpms:
crossdesktop-filesystem - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesytem and (later) darwinx-filesystem mingw-binutils - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-binutils and mingw64-binutils mingw-gcc - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc mingw-headers - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-headers and mingw64-headers mingw-crt - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-crt and mingw64-crt
and in the future, once legal issues get cleared : darwinx-odcctools - Contains the binutils equivalent for Mac OS X darwinx-gcc - Contains Apple's version of GCC(In reply to comment #6) darwinx-sdk - Contains the various headers and libraries of a default Mac OS X environment
All mingw32-* packages could then get renamed to crossdesktop-* packages and produce binary RPMs called mingw32-*, mingw64-* (and later darwinx-*)