mxe VS BinaryBuilder.jl

Cross compiler 64bit minGW along with MXE environment

I used to use MXE [1] to compile fully static Windows binaries on Linux VMs hosted with Travis. It needed to crane in everything though, so it was a source of bottlenecks from time to time. I was also uncertain about the provenance of a lot of the dependencies in that toolchain. So when Travis died I took the opportunity to move Windows builds back to gnu with msys2, all over GH Actions. These are actually comparatively snappy and I’m reasonably satisfied with it.

[1] https://mxe.cc/

MXE readily supports GCC 12 as a plugin (just a configuration line): https://github.com/mxe/mxe/tree/master/plugins/gcc12

Also, if you don't have any other significant dependencies, getting the development tools on Windows is not that hard with the Qt installer. Alternatively, there is MXE.

MXE (https://mxe.cc/) is a great cross compiler environment (on linux) that uses mingw.

You can install Docker to build on any Linux distro, and if one of those is Ubuntu then you can use https://github.com/mxe/mxe to further build for Windows. Or VirtualBox + Ubuntu + MXE.

There are some efforts and the startup times are getting better with every release and there's BinaryBuilder.jl.

There is the Julia package https://github.com/JuliaPackaging/BinaryBuilder.jl which creates an environment that fakes being another, but with the correct compilers and SDKs . It's used to build all the binary dependencies

https://binarybuilder.org/. You can do it manually obviously, but this is easier.

> The main pain point is probably the lack of standard, multi-environment packaging solutions for natively compiled code.

Are you talking about something like BinaryBuilder.jl[1], which provides native binaries as julia-callable wrappers?

--

[1] https://binarybuilder.org

Julia did that for binary dependencies for a few years, with adapters for several linux platforms, homebrew, and for cross-compiled RPMs for Windows. It worked, to a degree -- less well on Windows -- but the combinatorial complexity led to many hiccups and significant maintenance effort. Each Julia package had to account for the peculiarities of each dependency across a range of dependency versions and packaging practices (linkage policies, bundling policies, naming variations, distro versions) -- and this is easier in Julia than in (C)Python because shared libraries are accessed via locally-JIT'd FFI, so there is no need to eg compile extensions for 4 different CPython ABIs (Julia also has syntactic macros which can be helpful here).

To provide a better experience for both package authors and users, as well as reducing the maintenance burden, the community has developed and migrated to a unified system called BinaryBuilder (https://binarybuilder.org) over the past 2-3 years. BinaryBuilder allows targeting all supported platforms with a single build script and also "audits" build products for common compatibility and linkage snafus (similar to some of the conda-build tooling and auditwheel). There was a nice talk at AlpineConf recently (https://alpinelinux.org/conf/) covering some of this history and detailing BinaryBuilder, although I'm not sure how to link into the video.

All that to say: it can work to an extent, but it has been tried various times before. The fact that conda and manylinux don't use system packages was not borne out of inexperience, either. The idea of "make binaries a distro packager's problem" sounds like a simplifying step, but that doesn't necessarily work out.