Comparison of Win-builds and WSYS2 on MINGW_W64

Http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mailman/mingw-w64-public/thread/[email protected]/

Hi,i am The main developer of Win-builds.nb 1:i slept 4 hoursnb 2:i ' ll is away from keyboard, maybe for Hourson Fri, May, Prasanna v. Loganathar wrote:> Hi, > > I had been using the builds as a part of MSYS2 for a while n OW, and i> believe the most robust and easiest-to-install MINGW-W64. Also,> due to the inherent nature of the system, it Also provides the most> up-to-date builds on par with the Linux Builds. > > The build I see on Winbuilds are actually older than the one on MSYS2. I ' m> just wondering if it would be in the best interests of the entire community> that MSYS2 is promoted as the Pref Erred build from the website instead of> Winbuilds. While Win-builds seem to provide a GUI and switchable toolchain,> MSYS2 just feels a lot more robust with, especially p Acman.  Pacman> integration at it Crux, seems to is the most brilliant package management> strategy for Windows, so far. > First of all, talking only AboUT gcc, mingw-w64 and Binutils is veryrestrictive. All the builds has much more than that. It's fairly common to hear that toolchain X are older than toolchain y.but first of all, does this even matter? Is there a bug with the GCC 4.8branch? Or with Mingw-w64 3.x? Or something else? If So, it should is fixed upstream and backported to thecurrently-supported releases. As far as I can tell, the things work Fairlywell it in practice. MSYS2 is a rolling-release distribution. It'll most certainly is moreup-to-date that Win-builds and that's the Design:both from Msys2 Andwin-builds. Win-builds has full releases which is maintained. This means twothings:once your start using one version, you don't get major softwareupdates all of the time and can Theref Ore get security and stabilityupdates for a while without have to update between major softwarereleases. The drawback is, the filtered and the larger theyare, the less likely they was to be applied. When the currently-visible versIon of Win-builds was made, GCC 4.9 wasalready available. It is a deliberate decision to/not/use it becauseat that time and while isn't providing anything new that was usable, it had Serious stability issues. By the the-the-by, GCC 5 does not has the same ABI as GCC 4.x for C + +. Therefore every C + + code would need a rebuild. It's a major change andnot necessarily something you want to see happen while you ' redeveloping your code. The wish for more updates have been acknowledged in Win-builds:there Isnow a "Next" repository which are the current Develo Pment status.  Itshould is at least as stable as what can is obtained through MSYS2 Butit ' s not a win-builds release with a version:it ' s The In-progress repo.> by the looks of the websites, I believe I can assume that the maintainers of> Winbuilds and MINGW-W64 is the same or perhaps at the least linked. As I said, I am the main maintainer of Win-builds. I am also the mainmaintainer of the website but it's been free for many many people toedit forQuite some time (and even more now, it's actually a wiki). For the little stories, for the look part:i migrated win-builds.org fromself-made html/php to DokuWiki fairly quickly, got Positive feedbackexcept for the theme which looked too much like a wiki, found Anotherone which pleased pretty much Everyo Ne. Then I tried to make yet another minor update to the old website Andthat was really too much suffering.  Considering DokuWiki had been veryeasy to set up a few weeks earlier for win-builds.org, I made aproof-of-concept port for The website. Ate my week-end but worked. Waited a bit to get some feedback and then switched the websites.> but i> would very much like to think that it woul D be better to focus the efforts> on one if so, and perhaps is even implement winbuilds over Msys2 ' s> excellent Convergence work. But until then, I think it could make a IoT more> sense to converge with MSYS2 for official sources, rather than use the& Gt Winbuilds System. Windows GCC (MinGW) Builds of libraries has historically> been a pain, because of the numerous different possible configuration the> Default build could has had, and due to the nature of the various sources,> and none to being so-called "official" (or at -least a de-facto standard) .> have winbuilds, and MSYS2 could again promote such problems, while> converging them Could very easily become the De-facto standard. Win-builds has and differences compared to MSYS2. One of them is thatit ' s pretty much platform-agnostic. It started as a cross-compilationyears ago (by the earlier than MSYS2) and the fact that it had atoolchain that runs on W Indows is a very small part of the wholeproject. Win-builds supports very well the scenario where is the build from a saneoperating system (say Linux) and want to has window S binaries:it makesit Easy-to-build on your preferred system and deploy on Windows. Thebuild times is also much shorter that. It has been thought as a wayto simplify the build of free software for Windows and therefore improvethe quality of Windows support in free software while also requiring lesstime. It is also going to support Mac OS X and *BSD systems soon. Actually itshould already pretty much work and if Apple wasn ' t the crap company ITIS (want-Test your software on their Operating system? Buy expensivehardware from them), it would already is finished. Even on the Windows it comes with very few strings attached. I ' ve testedwith several IDEs and is able to setup everything easily. The only twoexceptions were CodeLite (the issue really looked as a bug incodelite) and IIRC Netbeans (it required an MSY S-style installation:posix makefiles and Shell). What bothers me with the MSYS2 crowd on this mailing-list is their bias. It's a very natural one and I ' m not blaming anyone @ all. My Point Isthat I could say that Linux are the OS on which people build and usemingw-w64, and most of here would probably agre E. However the reality isthat this mailing-list and the People diRectly involved in the Projectare no at all representative of the users. We ' re not even the 1, we're recloser to the 0.1%. Half of the proponents of msys2 seem to has used Arch Linux first. Idoubt This is representative of the actual users. Most probably use Idesand would never want to abandon them. Requiring command-line, even forshort amounts of time, is the same story. (By the Way:please don ' t think on masquerading anything with anmsys-style behaviour as a typical Windows executable, I  T ' d be adis-service to the users who would probably get Difficult-to-understandbugs) Long Mail already so I'll try to summarize Without forgetting too manythings:-platform support are different and support for compiling on Windows is a minor and NA Tural Cost (Deploying GCC's. dll files is the first reason)-the vast majority of people does not want to deal with some Thing command-line and/or Posix/linux-i ' m not saying Msys2 are bad-approach to packaging, distribution and maintenance a  Re different; DoESN ' t one better but for sure, there is people to prefer each one over the Otherregards,adrien Naderhttp://win-buil ds.org

Comparison of Win-builds and WSYS2 on mingw_w64