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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
