Re: [AD] Re: mingw not mingw32

[aj <aj@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I vote to change it to  'mingw'
Unless there are techincal reasons not to change it.
Its best to minimize the confusion about its viablilty on 64bit platforms.
(or is this going to be just another legacy thing that makes allegro 
look its age).
Embrace the reality, 64bit PCs are already here!




Thomas Fjellstrom wrote:

> On Sunday 18 December 2005 07:37, Death Gauge wrote:
>  
>
> > I've seen this come up hundreds of times on IRC, a few times on A.cc, and
> > now on here. Who cares if it is MinGW or MinGW32? The 32 is implied that is
> > why it was removed from the name. Look at the Win API which until recently
> > was also referred to as Win32 API. My question is this: WHO CARES? It isn't
> > that big of a deal to see MinGW32 instead of MinGW and it isn't that big of
> > the to have to type fix mingw32 with two extra characters. As for
> > documentation, why fix it to match MinGW.org? MinGW32 is MinGW so therefore
> > there isn't any thesible reason to mess with changing the appearances of
> > one or the other.
> >    
>
> Thats the problem though, it isn't implied, gcc/mingw is capable of running on 
> and generating binarys for 64bit windows platforms (itanium, amd64 etc).
>
>  
>
> > > > I've been looking at the website http://www.mingw.org/ .  Some time ago
> > > > the 32 was dropped from mingw32.  Its official name is mingw now.  I
> > > > propose that all of the files and source code in allegro be changed from
> > > > mingw32 to mingw.
> > > >        
> > > It's not worth changing it everywhere.  Michal Molhanec "replaced all
> > > occurences of MingW32 by MinGW in the docs" at some stage.  I propose we
> > > keep the same policy and leave "mingw32" in the source code and
> > > makefiles and directory and file names and use "mingw" for
> > > documentation.
> > >
> > > Attached is a patch to change a few more occurences where it is harmless
> > > to do so.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >      
>
>