On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:03:52PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:00:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >> I agree with Chris here. IMO, gcc-mingw is a cross-compiler targeting the > >> "mingw architecture". I have seen packages on Linux named "gcc-<arch>", > >> so I think gcc-mingw is more appropriate (where "gcc" alone assumes > >> "gcc-cygwin", or even "gcc-i686-pc-cygwin"). > > > >I agree partly. I don't think that the cross compiler for mingw should > >get an shortened name as "gcc-mingw" but only a full targeted name as > >"gcc-i686-pc-mingw32" as for any other cross compiler. > > The files on disk do reflect that naming. I don't think there is any > reason to inflict it on the package name though.
Uh, I see. Yes, a simple package name is ok, of course. And in this case I agree with gcc-mingw. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
