From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2007-11-07 12:38:07
|
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 14:14 -0500, NightStrike wrote: > > Do we really need another project? This project is MinGW, note > > there is no 32 after it. This was purposeful for the day when > > 64/128/256 what ever bits came along. > > It was not intentional to step on any toes. Kai was originally > providing snapshots often to the mingw project, but it became > advantageous to make a new project until the project is stable. While it may seem advantageous to the 64-bit developers, my concern is that it will cause confusion for end users. On SourceForge, we now have - MinGW the original, and still the official Open Source native Win32 project for GCC and associated tools - Visual-MinGW the only other project which can claim to be officially affiliated to MinGW; now defunct - MinGW-w64 a fork from MinGW, apparently specifically for developers working to support Win64 - MinGW-install a completely independently maintained project, unsanctioned and unsupported by us, offering our packages, bundled in `kitchen sink' fashion - MinGW packages another independent, unsanctioned and unsupported repository project, offering add-on packages for use with MinGW; (all of which appear long out of date). - MinGW Cross and another; appears to offer RPM packages based Compiler on MinGW, but not the cross compiler Michael and I support. - etc., etc. searching SF Projects for `MinGW', I see 63 hits; the majority are standalone projects, which simply list MinGW as a supported build system, but I count six others with MinGW in their names, lending to a false impression that they may be somehow affiliated with MinGW, (which of course they are not). I know that, at the time Kai forked MinGW-w64, Danny raised some doubt concerning the provenance of some of the information he'd incorporated into his header set -- an issue which he really ought to address -- but would it not have been better to discuss here, how to adapt our project infrastructure to better accommodate the Win64 needs, rather than jump ahead with this fork? Regards, Keith. |