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