> On Nov 22, 2016, at 5:58 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > wrote: > > On terça-feira, 22 de novembro de 2016 16:07:25 PST Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On terça-feira, 22 de novembro de 2016 23:46:32 PST Jake Petroules wrote: >>>> - For MinGW I propose to start delivering 64 bit binary packages instead >>>> of 32 bit one & start using MinGW 6.x (6.2?) >>> >>> Does this make sense when we're still delivering 32-bit MSVC packages? I'd >>> opt to keep 32-bit or have both. >> >> I agree with Jake: replacing one with the other is not a good idea. We >> should provide both for a time, before dropping 32-bit. > > If we still have time, I'd like to see MinGW 64-bit for 5.8, so we can drop > the 32-bit binary build in time for 5.9. > > Otherwise, if we have to wait for 5.9 to bring MinGW 64-bit, then we can't > drop 32-bit until 5.10.
Agreed. We should also consider dropping 32-bit MSVC since we've had both for a while and we only support Windows 7 and above now, which should mean adoption is good enough to do so. > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development -- Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io The Qt Company - Silicon Valley Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development