[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The mingw* mess in Debian

Hi Fabian (and all the other participants in this thread),

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:33:14 +0100, Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>
> Is there a principle behind all this or where can I help to clean this 
> up? ;)

The history has been explained by others. I've been working for a while on
dropping at least gcc-mingw32; see #644769 which tracks the various packages
build-depending on gcc-mingw32 and/or mingw32. There are only three packages
left now; see #623400, #623402 and #623526. Patches are available for all the
bugs so NMUs should be straightforward if they're deemed necessary - I could
do the NMUs but I'd need a sponsor!

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:13:12 +0100, Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>
> Furthermore, the gcc-mingw-w64 package, although misleadingly labeled
> w64, is able to produce object code targeted at both the 32-bit and
> 64-bit Windows platform. I'd thus suggest to split the package into
> one component for each platform to avoid confusion and place
> appropriate Replaces and Provides against the mingw32 package family.

As far as the naming is concerned, see #622276 for details. I've thought
about splitting the packages up, with separate 32- and 64-bit targets, but
I'm not sure whether replacing and providing the mingw32 packages would be
correct, since mingw-w64 isn't a drop-in replacement (the triplets are
different). If that's not a problem then why not! The names for the 32-bit
packages would probably be quite weird though since the upstream name is
mingw-w64 (and I'd rather keep that in the package names...).



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: