On 15/07/2012, William <r...@libertysurf.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > On 07/15/2012 10:40 PM, Adrien wrote: >> Hi, >> >> After looking at MXE, there are several things I don't like and do >> differently. >> >> First, it seems to be using mingw.org and not mingw-w64. This is a big >> issue as far as I'm concerned, including for social reasons (both >> because yypkg is most probably going to be mingw-w64's default package >> manager, and because mingw.org people are assholes with whom you can't >> ever get anything done or fixed). > That is true it uses mingw.org. There is that fork : > https://github.com/tonytheodore/mxe > that is a bit less maintained but that is built on mingw-w64. The fork > add the possibility to build "Multi" targets : mingw.org, mingw-w64 > 32/64bits, static/dynamic. But again, less maintained. > >> >> Then, yypkg runs on windows too. > ok >> >> Probably my biggest gripe, yypkg build scripts build _packages_ which >> are all independant. This means you can remove and upgrade packages. > ok >> >> I also disagree on some more minor things like retrieving sources >> automatically from a webpage but that's really minor. >> >> That said, thanks for mentionning MXE: I didn't know about it. Even >> with all the differences I've mentionned, the fact that we're all >> trying to get things to run on windows and through cross-compilation >> with gcc means we all have to fix several sources and it's good to be >> able to share the corresponding information. >> > > Please keep in mind that MXE is quite well maintained, which means that > what you do in that project has good chance to leave in 5 years : even > if you stop maintaining your packages in the future, your work would not > be lost.
The relation between the packages I'm making and mingw-w64 is quite important. I simply hate how mingw.org is developped: it's awful, it's not upstream, it's unreliable. Mingw-w64 is quite the opposite, with a lot of collaboration between the gcc/mingw-w64 people and the others. Yypkg will fill the gap for a full package system there and that's where there is a huge difference: it has to be able to work with binary setups everywhere, and it has to work on windows which is where most users are. For the packages, I've chosen to track the slackware linux distribution. Basically, when there is an update, I run: git checkout master git pull git checkout mingw git merge master I could do it more quickly but doing more steps feels safer. :P Anywa, that's very very little work and that has a huge advantage: a simple way to find out about security updates. As for long-term support, yypkg and its packages are going to become fully supported by mingw-w64 and its core devs so it's pretty safe. But in the end, the biggest difference are the goals: native and cross versus cross-only, binaries (and build scripts) versus only build scripts, shared libraries versus static/shared, mingw-w64 versus mingw.org and/or mingw-w64. -- Adrien Nader _______________________________________________ Godi-list mailing list Godi-list@ocaml-programming.de https://godirepo.camlcity.org/mailman/listinfo/godi-list
