mingw January 2011

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
65 discussions

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 --- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-01-31 14:15:33 EST --- > (In reply to comment #5) > That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake. I agree with you that x86_64-w64-mingw32 isn't an ideal name, but we've got to do with it for now. While it technically could be made possible to use a different target it will require patching of almost every package and the toolchain itself will divert from upstream. Is that really a direction we should be going..? How about these names for the source rpms: crossdesktop-filesystem - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesytem and (later) darwinx-filesystem mingw-binutils - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-binutils and mingw64-binutils mingw-gcc - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc mingw-headers - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-headers and mingw64-headers mingw-crt - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-crt and mingw64-crt and in the future, once legal issues get cleared : darwinx-odcctools - Contains the binutils equivalent for Mac OS X darwinx-gcc - Contains Apple's version of GCC(In reply to comment #6) darwinx-sdk - Contains the various headers and libraries of a default Mac OS X environment All mingw32-* packages could then get renamed to crossdesktop-* packages and produce binary RPMs called mingw32-*, mingw64-* (and later darwinx-*) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-31 11:36:31 EST --- OK, but I don't think crossdesktop-* is going to offend anyone's sensibilities. It reflects what we are doing: offering a cross compiler that targets the most popular desktop systems out there today (where "most popular" is measured by market share, and "desktop" doesn't include embedded/mobile systems). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike(a)cchtml.com --- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> 2011-01-31 09:33:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > I disagree - It would have been the appropriate choice. Why is it if you didn't create it, Ralf, you always disagree? cross-* is the /start/ of the cross compiler project. Eric/Richard are starting the cross compiler project with only MinGW, but with the plan to expand to OS X and whatever other cross compiling. In your mind, Ralf, Eric/Richard need to keep the cross compiler package names split?? THAT doesn't make any sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> 2011-01-31 06:53:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard > > > suggested if you prefer that > > > > IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it > > currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. > > "mingw" has always been an unfortunate choice of name. I disagree - It would have been the appropriate choice. > And *crucially* we are adding support for Mac OS X which doesn't > use mingw at all. Well, has the licence/copyright situation changed? To my knowledge MacOSX requires non-free code from Apple. > > > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but it's > > > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. > > Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) > > > > x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: > > - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", > > => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" > > - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. > > ... > > > > I.e. to me reasonable choices would be > > x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw > > or > > x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 > > Whatever you think doesn't really matter, Correct. > since this is the > choice of the mingw-w64 upstream project. They are in a much > better situation to judge how it should work. I disagree. One thing I had learnt with MinGW is them being Windows focused folks with little GNU SW experience - One of the situation this shows is situations like these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-31 06:17:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard > > suggested if you prefer that > > IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it > currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. "mingw" has always been an unfortunate choice of name. Really the cross-compiler has very little to do with the mingw.org project. mingw-w64 is a completely separate fork. And there is a separate mingw.org-related binary project which is nothing to do with us, but people frequently get confused over the two. And *crucially* we are adding support for Mac OS X which doesn't use mingw at all. This is why I'm suggesting crossdesktop-* or some other choice which doesn't involve the 5 letters "mingw". > > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but it's > > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. > Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) > > x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: > - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", > => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" > - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. > ... > > I.e. to me reasonable choices would be > x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw > or > x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 Whatever you think doesn't really matter, since this is the choice of the mingw-w64 upstream project. They are in a much better situation to judge how it should work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Jan '11

31 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> 2011-01-31 05:52:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > As mentioned on the link in the initial message the plan is to rename all > current mingw32-* package to cross-*. With all due respect, to me this plan is beyond reason, because mingw, rsp. their 2 sub targets mingw32 and mingw64 are only a very small subset of cross-targets. > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard > suggested if you prefer that IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but it's > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. ... I.e. to me reasonable choices would be x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw or x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 > I just dropped the > question about the history behind that name in the #mingw-w64 IRC channel and I > got multiple answers back. The main reason is compatibility. Think about the > autotools where a large amount of checks look for the term 'mingw32' in the > target to find out whether the target is a MS Windows one. When the 'w64' part > in the target name is used The 2nd field of a target-triple is the "vendor"/"manufacturer" field, which originally was meant to be the hard-ware manufacturer of a specific board, which later became abused by Linux-vendors to put their brand into (*-redhat-*, *-suse-*). I.e. if mingw wants to follow the "HW vendor" path, their 2nd field should be "pc" (The generic value), rsp, if they want to follow the SW vendor path, it should be "microsoft". In any case, the vendor field is without much practical importance and unused in 99% of all configure scripts (ignored). What matters are the "cpu"-field and the "OS" field - They need to provide sufficient information for configure scripts to destinguish architectures and OSes. That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

1 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Jan '11

30 Jan '11

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673784 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rjones(a)redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-30 13:06:21 EST --- I think Ralf has a point here. However the problem with the proposal is simply the choice of "cross-*" as a prefix. I believe since this is not a truly general cross-compiler (ie. not targetted at arm embedded etc) that we should just come up with another prefix. Since we aim to cross-compiler for common desktop platforms (ie. Windows 32/64 + Mac OS X) how about calling it crossdesktop-*? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw January 2011