Re: [RFC] cygport mingw.cygclass

[Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>]

Yaakov Selkowitz writes:
> To ease the maintenance of MinGW cross-compiling packages, I have
> written a new mingw.cygclass (actually, a series of cygclasses, but
> that's the top-level one that you should use) which is designed to
> allow building both 32- and 64-bit MinGW binaries in the same build.
>  It also allows for the introduction of Windows for ARM toolchains,
> which I have bootstrapped but am not able to verify due to the lack of
> access to such systems.  (Therefore, they are disabled by default.)

I've had a look finally and when I say that I really mean reading the
diffs…

> Because this moves fundamentally away from the single-arch paradigms on
> which cygport was built (remember that cygport predates the widespread
> availability of 64-bit Windows systems), extensive changes were
> required that could possibly break something.  Therefore, I have posted
> this to the topic/mingw branch of cygport.  If maintainers could please
> test this with both mingw and ordinary packages, that would be
> appreciated.

Anything that you'd particularly want to have checked or just generally
that things still work?  I still need to rebase that branch to current
master and then put my patches on top, so I don't expect to immediately
start testing.

> Also needed is feedback on the naming schemes currently used:
>
> * mingw32_* functions and MINGW32_ definitions/variables for i686
> * mingw64_* functions and MINGW64_ definitions/variables for x86_64

I'm not particularly enamored with mingw32 as that's not what it is
(both are using MingW-W64), on the other hand I have no better idea
either.

> * mingwarm32_* functions and MINGWARM32_ definitions/variables for
> armv7
> * mingwarm64_* functions and MINGWARM64_ definitions/variables for
> aarch64
>
> * mingw-* for source package names
> * mingw64-i686-* for i686 binary packages
> * mingw64-x86_64-* for x86_64 binary packages
> * mingw64-armv7-* for armv7 binary packages
> * mingw64-aarch64-* for aarch64 binary packages
>
> The function/definition naming scheme is designed around Fedora (which
> does not have ARM, so I made those up myself) but the binary package
> scheme match our current usage.  I realize the source package names are
> those from the old i686-only mingw.org packages; whether we want to
> rename the binary packages to mingw32-/mingw64-, or rename the source
> packages to mingw64-, or do something else entirely, I'm open to
> suggestions.

I'd tend to leave the names alone unless/until we come up with a way to target
multiple cross-architectures from the same package source.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf rackAttack V1.04R1:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada