From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2013-02-27 21:27:42
|
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Keith Marshall wrote: > On 27/02/13 20:54, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: >>> Then we stop using the alias feature, in our package specifications, and >>> force users to be more verbosely specific when selecting packages. I >>> had reservations when I added aliases, (as an experiment), because they >>> could be easily abused; Chuck persuaded me to keep them. >> >> Perhaps we should. Maybe with the next release of mingw-get. > > This is nothing to do with the mingw-get release cycle; it is entirely a > property of mingw-dist. Individual package maintainers will need to > remove *inappropriate* aliases from the XML specifications for their > packages; (note that some aliases will remain appropriate [1]). I understand this, I'm thinking of a coordinated effort w.r.t. a mingw-get release so that it all happens roughly at the same time. > > [1] There are currently three aliases defined for mingw32-gcc: > > gcc == mingw32-gcc > gcc-core == mingw32-gcc > mingw32-gcc-core == mingw32-gcc > > Of these, the first two yield the impression of default behaviour, which > you find objectionable; the third remains appropriate. > Yes, I agree. The alias though should contain a subsystem mingw32-gcc or mingw64-gcc. But mingw64-gcc should not be installed onto a 32bit OS, how do we control that? -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |