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

Daniel P. Berrange berrange at redhat.com
Thu Feb 12 11:37:47 UTC 2009


On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:31:38PM +0000, 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).

I think it'd be worth discussing whether 'cross-XXXX' is better for
the package names, in context of Fedora devel if we put forward a 
plan to generalize to arbitrary cross-archs for Fedora 12. 

Ultimately though I don't think it hugely matters what the src.rpm is 
called because it has no impact on end users of this feature. It is 
just a naming prettiness issue.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|



More information about the mingw mailing list