[pkg-wine-party] [Mingw-w64] RFC: MinGW-w64 toolchain (adoption and new packages)

Ron ron at debian.org
Sat Dec 11 06:58:10 UTC 2010

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:29:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 23.11.2010 12:49, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> >>That's great.  One possibility in the long run might be to package
> >>this as part of the usual gcc and binutils packages, then.
> please no. Adding more packages and complexity to the native gcc and
> binutils builds is a no-go.

I agree, we really don't want to bundle this in tightly with the native
packaging, nor do we want to keep adding more and more copies of what
is essentially the same source.

> >debian-gcc is a bit specific to the native libc based toolchains and
> >cross-toolchains using libc. I didn't manage to find an easy place to
> >plugin mingw-w64 bootstrap into that packaging.
> You might want to have a look at Marcin's cross-build packages,
> using the gcc-, binutils- and eglibc- source packages.

I wasn't aware of Marcin's work, but I also agree this is probably
the best avenue to explore if these are all building from identical
source.  I believe Robert's original attempt even did exactly this,
and I tried to point Stephen in this direction too when he first
contacted me, but I think that point got lost, and I got too busy
to point again in more detail immediately.

AIUI, the main problem with this is that the distro archive tools
currently don't have good support for ensuring these 'binary' -source
packages will remain available and linked to the derivative binary
debs that might be built from them and uploaded to the distro.

I believe ftp-master indicated to Robert that this could be fixed,
but he went back to the quick and dirty duplication instead.  If
there are people with time to spend on this, talking to the archive
maintenance people about what needs to be done for that, and when
and how it might happen, is probably a productive step at this point.


More information about the pkg-wine-party mailing list