Hi Fabian, On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:33:55 +0100, Fabian Greffrath <fab...@greffrath.com> wrote: > > The history has been explained by others. I've been working for a while on > > dropping at least gcc-mingw32; see #644769 which tracks the various > > packages build-depending on gcc-mingw32 and/or mingw32. There are only > > three packages left now; see #623400, #623402 and #623526. Patches are > > available for all the bugs so NMUs should be straightforward if they're > > deemed necessary - I could do the NMUs but I'd need a sponsor! > > thank you very much for taking care of this. It's good to know that > you have already taken measures to drop the obsolete packages. How > about mingw32 (the one without gcc-) and friends?
I'll let Ron handle mingw32's demise when the time comes... I noticed though that the remaining reverse build-dependencies only used mingw32, not gcc-mingw32, so I adjusted the various blocking relationships on #644769 and #648306. gcc-mingw32 is no longer a build-dependency of any package in Debian so I'll probably dispose of it with the next gcc-mingw-w64 upload (which will include a transition package). > > mingw-w64-i386 and mingw-w64-x64 are a bit ugly but still look sensible > > True, but mingw-w64-i686 and mingw-w64-x86_64 would even somehow match > the compilers' GNU tuples. I was thinking more along the lines of mingw-w64-win32 and mingw-w64-win64 so that the API names appear in the package names. For people who know about MinGW-w64 and its tuples the -i686 and -x86_64 approach would make sense, but they already know to look for mingw-w64; for people who are looking for Windows build tools it might be more helpful to actually mention win32 in the 32-bit packages (lots of people don't realise mingw-w64 targets 32-bit Windows too; it seems the package description isn't sufficient). Regards, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
