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.