On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:31:38PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 04:10:21PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: Discuss: Base packages for Win32 / Win64 / OS X > > cross-compilation > > From: Richard W.M. Jones <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Date: 02/11/2009 03:39 PM > > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > > Does this call for a different arch naming classification? > > > > Now Fixed > > mingw32-gcc mingw-gcc > > mingw32-gtk2 mingw-gtk2-win32, mingw-gtk2-win64 > > > > ... or something similar? I see little sense in keeping the name > > "mingw32" as the main name if we're going to start including win64 > > capability. > > A good question. > > There are several things which restrict us here: (1) mingw32-* is the > naming scheme for 32 bit Windows cross-compiler packages, as approved > by various Fedora bodies. That approval took months of wrangling to > achieve. (2) The (moderate) difficulty of renaming existing source > packages. > > The naming scheme I suggested would be something like: > > mingw32-zlib.src.rpm > | | | > | generating | > | | | > V V V > mingw32-zlib mingw64-zlib darwinx-zlib > > An ideal naming scheme (if we could start over) might be something > like: > > cross-zlib.src.rpm > | | | > | generating | > | | | > V V V > zlib-win32 zlib-win64 zlib-darwin > > But the points (1) and (2) above make this difficult to really achieve > from where we are right now. Particularly (1). Anything where we > have to go back to FPC/FESCO is undesirable and might even jeopardise > the whole project. (Look back at the heated mailing list / IRC > arguments from last summer).
I think it'd be worth discussing whether 'cross-XXXX' is better for the package names, in context of Fedora devel if we put forward a plan to generalize to arbitrary cross-archs for Fedora 12. Ultimately though I don't think it hugely matters what the src.rpm is called because it has no impact on end users of this feature. It is just a naming prettiness issue. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
