Re: [Mingw-cross-env-list] Toolchain refactoring (was: MXE packages as APT)

[Tony Theodore]

> On 24 Sep 2015, at 07:08, Nagaev Boris <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Tony Theodore <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ideally, the build should be broken into (at least) two stages - native and 
>> cross. This could be achieved by some rules in the Makefile so that 
>> $(MXE_TARGETS) depend on $(BUILD), removal of the pseudo packages and moving 
>> the build rules to the real packages. Call this “target” dependencies and it 
>> has the benefit of being simple.
> 
> I like the idea.

Simplicity has it’s own virtue and it’s very hard to pre-empt use cases. I’ve 
submitted a pull request[1] that should help with our current issues.

> I prefer "phases" over "stages”.

“phases” are overkill at this stage;) But I agree, “phases” are more meaningful.

>> So stages/phases to control ordering and sections(?) to control inclusion.
> 
> My understanding of this separation between phases and sections is not
> ideal. Do sections belong to phases? I.e. one phase has one or more
> sections? Does a package belong to one or many phases/sections?

My thinking about “sections” was to control inclusion, and they would have 
belonged to a “phase”. The “plugins”[2] idea is a much better way to handle 
this. 

>> [1] native/toolchain/cross roughly correspond to build/target/host in 
>> gcc/binutils terminology but I’m trying to stay away from that.
> 
> Maybe it corresponds to host/build/target (another order)?

Phases don’t correspond to ordering so much as combinations of 
build/host/target and various levels of bootstrapping. This will be clearer 
when we introduce more compilers and runtimes.

Cheers,

Tony


[1] https://github.com/mxe/mxe/pull/925
[2] https://github.com/mxe/mxe/issues/881#issuecomment-142719172