On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:50:00AM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > > On 07.02.22 10:29, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 1:01 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 12:17:08AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel > > wrote: > > > Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > > Fwiw, given that the primary use case for a cross-toolchain is for > > > > developer needs, I think it is reasonable to have only UCRT > > target in the > > > > future. > > > > > > > > Projects releasing for Windows should probably natively build > > and test > > > > their releases with Msys2, and they can do so for msvcrt targets. > > > > > > Well, with cross-MinGW and cross-NSIS, I can package software > > for Windows > > > without ever touching a Windows machine. I have done so more > > than once > > > already. I do not even have a Windows installation on which I > > can run Msys2. > > > > Exactly, this is the precise reason why a group of us started > > the Fedora mingw packaging effort all those years ago. > > > > I have a Windows machine for testing / debugging on, but it is so > > much simpler if we can do cross builds from Linux, as it means we > > don't have to switch context between machines when developing. > > > > > > Nowadays, with the built-in ssh server, git, msys2, meson, docker and > > CI..., developing for Windows is much easier than it was 10y ago! > > > > For me, it's barely a context switch, sync the repo and run "meson > > test" (or cmake) there. I haven't tried the shared folder yet. Testing > > the windows build is not something you can really do on Linux... So I > > will prefer a native build whenever possible. > > > > Anyway, no need to convince me about the need for cross-compilers :) > > However, I regret that we have undermaintained and duplicated > > mingw*-pkg. I am looking at whether we can use msys2 packages instead > > (for developpers). > > As noted in the mingw list thread, for me the objective of version parity > between native and mingw packages of the current mingw-environment is a big > selling point. My real-world experience reflects what others shared in this > post, namely that by far most issues which pop up during testing are target > independent, i.e. will affect both the native build as the cross-compiled > build. It's true that version partiy is not 100% reflected in the current > package state, but I still believe the overall state is pretty good, and > personally I'd rather look at building cross and native packages from the > same spec to reduce the maintenance burden. I know that there was a proposal > in this direction some months ago, I'd like to start moving in this > direction at least with packages where I maintain both the native and the > cross packages. Yes, I proposed that last year. I was supposed to move it forward by providing a copr repo illustrating it in real world, but I'm afraid I got side tracked. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
