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

Re: The mingw* mess in Debian

Hi Fabian,

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:33:55 +0100, Fabian Greffrath <fabian@greffrath.com>
> > 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!
> thank you very much for taking care of this. It's good to know that 
> you have already taken measures to drop the obsolete packages. How 
> about mingw32 (the one without gcc-) and friends?

I'll let Ron handle mingw32's demise when the time comes... I noticed though
that the remaining reverse build-dependencies only used mingw32, not
gcc-mingw32, so I adjusted the various blocking relationships on #644769 and
#648306. gcc-mingw32 is no longer a build-dependency of any package in Debian
so I'll probably dispose of it with the next gcc-mingw-w64 upload (which
will include a transition package).

> > mingw-w64-i386 and mingw-w64-x64 are a bit ugly but still look sensible
> True, but mingw-w64-i686 and mingw-w64-x86_64 would even somehow match 
> the compilers' GNU tuples.

I was thinking more along the lines of mingw-w64-win32 and mingw-w64-win64 so
that the API names appear in the package names. For people who know about
MinGW-w64 and its tuples the -i686 and -x86_64 approach would make sense, but
they already know to look for mingw-w64; for people who are looking for
Windows build tools it might be more helpful to actually mention win32 in the
32-bit packages (lots of people don't realise mingw-w64 targets 32-bit
Windows too; it seems the package description isn't sufficient).



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: