Re: dpkg-cross, dpkg-architecture and arch names
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:48:14AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Calling it "win32-i386" was my first guess, too. However, looking
> > deeper at the problem I concluded that the name
> >
> > w32-i386
> >
> > is much better. The term "w32" is shorter and it's used very often,
> > even in dpkg-cross itself (there is a /etc/dpkg-cross/cross-config.w32).
> > Also, it appears in the name "mingw32".
>
> Well it's just 2 chars shorter. We have arch names like hurd-i386 or
> even kfreebsd-i386. ;)
If there was a consensus for "win32-i386", I'd also be happy with it.
Any choice would be an improvement to the current situation.
> > As I already stated in the past, this has a problem with different
> > CPU variants.
> >
> > The generic "i386" may stand for i386, i486, i586, etc.
> >
> > While "linux-i386" in Debian currently means "i486",
> > a "w32-i386" should stand for "i586".
>
> Why do you need i586? I think someone else asked the same.
Yes, and I answered it already: The standard MinGW cross compiler
for Debian (packages "mingw32") has the prefix "i586-mingw32msvc".
So this is simply a practical need. Sadly the maintainer of
mingw32, Ron, didn't join the discussion.
Do you think it's sensible to create an own cross compiler package
just for having a "i486-mingw32msvc"?
> > > The latter (missing win32), is a matter of adding that to the ostable,
> > > I can do that, if there's consensus among the win32 porters.
> >
> > Yes! Please append to /usr/share/dpkg/ostable this line:
> >
> > w32 mingw32msvc mingw32[^-]*
>
> I'd need some kind of consensus from the win32 porters first,
Who do you mean with "win32 porters"? Why didn't you just CC the
discussion question to them?
Do I have to organize a voting for the Debian ostable entry
(w32 vs. win32 vs. ...) among win32 porters?
How many win32 porters will I have to find and ask? What if
those don't exist? What if they don't use Debian (and won't,
unless dpkg-cross supports them)?
> I'm not
> going to add this with just one person asking for it, and then having
> the rest come screaming, sorry. ;)
Why should they scream?
Did "they" never ask for a permanent entry in the ostable?
> > There are problems with the cputable, but this change to the
> > ostable is (to my knowledge) a general consensus.
>
> Do you have pointers to discussions about that?
Do, sorry, these were personal mail exchanges. It was hard enough
for me to find *anyone* who's interested on that topic.
I think, most gave up because they didn't do the research I did,
probably they don't even know about the mingw32 oder dpkg-cross
packages.
So they build their cross compilers, configure-make their libs,
and build their packages. The same effort for every win32 porter.
Some gave up, some got it somehow to work. I didn't want to stay
on that level. I tried to figure out the "right thing".
To my knowledge, I'm alone with that goal, until I produce some
initial work that's big enough so that others are interested to
join and help. In order to do this, I need a non-kludge way to
create cross compiled packages for Debian. You require me to get
a community first which then discusses about the name. To get
a community, I need some initial work. Do do that, I need a
name, etc.
I thought your offer to include an ostable entry was serious, but
for me it's effectively a "no", because for me it's connected to
some unresolvable dependencies.
However, if there's a community I don't know about, please tell
me. I couldn't find any, except debian-embedded which was the
closest one despite the dead debian-win32 list and the GnuWin32
project which isn't connected to Debian.
(except via my any2deb tool and http://www.profv.de/debian/)
Greets,
Volker
--
Volker Grabsch
---<<(())>>---
Administrator
NotJustHosting GbR
Reply to: