Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I've noticed that the most recent mingw32-binutils package is in fact > using upstream binutils (it's shipped separately by mingw.org, but it > is identical to gnu.org binutils). So the diagram should look like > this: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > mingw32- mingw64- darwinx- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > filesystem filesystem filesystem > > binutils <--- ? ---> binutils odcctools > (from upstream) (from upstream) (from Apple) > > gcc <--- ? ---> gcc gcc > (from upstream) (from upstream) (from Apple) > > w32api headers headers > (from mingw) (from mw64) (from Apple) > > runtime runtime - > (from mingw) (from mw64) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Which raises also the possibility of combining mingw32-binutils and > mingw64-binutils together (as well as mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc as > mentioned in the previous email).
as always i prefer to keep as little package as possible even if the spec files are a bit different. even only one crosscompile-filesystem and one mingw-gcc etc. even on crosscompile-headers (even is we rename w32ai). may be such names: <prefix>-<platform>-<package> <prefix> ~ crosscompile or cross <platform> ~ win32, win64 and osx or darwinx <package> ~ zlib as currently mingw32 packages not really widespread we can easily rename everything than later. so it'd be useful to thing about it. let's discuss it now before f11! -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
