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

[Farkas Levente]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 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
> packages.

try to get a newer approval!

> The naming scheme I suggested would be something like:
> 
>          mingw32-zlib.src.rpm
>           |        |        |
>           |    generating   |
>           |        |        |
>           V        V        V
> mingw32-zlib  mingw64-zlib darwinx-zlib
> 
> An ideal naming scheme (if we could start over) might be something
> like:
> 
>           cross-zlib.src.rpm
>           |        |        |
>           |    generating   |
>           |        |        |
>           V        V        V
>   zlib-win32  zlib-win64  zlib-darwin

i exactly suggest it!

> But the points (1) and (2) above make this difficult to really achieve
> from where we are right now.  Particularly (1).  Anything where we

most approvals are on this list or even we can collect them from
bugzilla and get them into this discussion.

> 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).

i can risk it!
let's ask fesco!
imho a whole crosscompile environment win32, win64 and osx would be
useful for everybody!

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"