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

Farkas Levente lfarkas at lfarkas.org
Wed Feb 11 22:41:43 UTC 2009


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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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).

anyway it's a good question wether osx or darwin is the better name?

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"



More information about the mingw mailing list