Discuss: Base packages for Win32 / Win64 / OS X cross-compilation

Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com
Wed Feb 11 22:31:38 UTC 2009

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:10:21PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Discuss: Base packages for Win32 / Win64 / OS X 
> cross-compilation
> From: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>
> To: fedora-mingw at lists.fedoraproject.org
> Date: 02/11/2009 03:39 PM
> > 
> > Which raises also the possibility of combining mingw32-binutils and
> > mingw64-binutils together (as well as mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc as
> > mentioned in the previous email).
> > 
> Does this call for a different arch naming classification?
>      Now              Fixed
> mingw32-gcc      mingw-gcc
> mingw32-gtk2     mingw-gtk2-win32, mingw-gtk2-win64
> ... or something similar? I see little sense in keeping the name 
> "mingw32" as the main name if we're going to start including win64 
> capability.

A good question.

There are several things which restrict us here: (1) mingw32-* is the
naming scheme for 32 bit Windows cross-compiler packages, as approved
by various Fedora bodies.  That approval took months of wrangling to
achieve.  (2) The (moderate) difficulty of renaming existing source

The naming scheme I suggested would be something like:

          |        |        |
          |    generating   |
          |        |        |
          V        V        V
mingw32-zlib  mingw64-zlib darwinx-zlib

An ideal naming scheme (if we could start over) might be something

          |        |        |
          |    generating   |
          |        |        |
          V        V        V
  zlib-win32  zlib-win64  zlib-darwin

But the points (1) and (2) above make this difficult to really achieve
from where we are right now.  Particularly (1).  Anything where we
have to go back to FPC/FESCO is undesirable and might even jeopardise
the whole project.  (Look back at the heated mailing list / IRC
arguments from last summer).


Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 68 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)

More information about the mingw mailing list