> From a policy standpoint...the mingw community is split, and while there > has been talk recently concerning reunification, that's all it has been: > talk. The issues appear to be both personal and technical, from my > interested but only marginally involved viewpoint: > > Do we want to choose sides in this?
I would prefer not to rehash that argument again. > It looks like we have no choice but to choose, as we need SOMETHING to > compile native w32 code, such as setup.exe -- and gcc3 is getting long > in the tooth. (Alternatively, we could "let a thousand flowers bloom" > and have all three: mingw64-gcc-32bit, mingw64-gcc-64bit, and > mingw-gcc-32bit cross compile toolchains in the distro...and cgf was > worried about confusion?) From a historical perspective, it would be nice to have mingw32 gcc cross compiler that uses the same w32api and mingw-runtime as Cygwin. Having said that, since I'm the w32api / mingw-runtime maintainer I'm a little biased on this one. > Or we could allow the mingw64 64bit toolchain (as the mingw.org guys > have no ability to support that anyway), but the mingw.org 32bit one. From a selfish standpoint, I'd like to have the 64-bit support. This being said, their are mingw-w64 tarballs available today from the mingw-w64 project, so I leave the decision to the powers that be. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://emergedesktop.org
