probably generate more confusion with the similarity to mingw32. I'd vote for mingw-w64-i686 and mingw-w64-x86_64 in the end, based on the following:
Me too!
How about the following base description: MinGW-w64 provides a development and runtime environment for 32- and 64-bit (x86 and x64) Windows applications using the Windows API and the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc).
Sounds very good!
As far as the packages are concerned, the mingw-w64 source package would produce mingw-w64, mingw-w64-i686, mingw-w64-x86_64, the corresponding three -dev variants and a single -tools package (since that varies only by host
With "the corresponding three -dev variants" you mean a meta-package mingw-w64-dev, which depends on both mingw-w64-i686-dev and mingw-w64-x86_64-dev?
architecture); gcc-mingw-w64 would produce all the gcc-based packages (gcc-mingw-w64, gcc-mingw-w64-i686, gcc-mingw-w64-x86_64; I'm also splitting
Will gcc-mingw-w64 also be a meta-package which depends on both gcc-mingw-w64-i686 and gcc-mingw-w64-x86_64?
the package up into gcc, g++, gnat, gfortran etc.) including the transitional gcc-mingw32 package; likewise binutils-mingw-w64 and gdb-mingw-w64.
On which package will the transitional gcc-mingw32 package depend? On gcc-mingw-w64-i686 with compatibility symlinks to the binaries to take account of the changed GNU tupel?
- Fabian