Pros of MINGW-packages

• Native Windows environment, easier for Windows developers
• More up-to-date package versions
• Supports both 32-bit and 64-bit builds

Cons of MINGW-packages

• Less cross-platform compatibility
• Requires more manual setup and configuration
• Smaller community and fewer pre-built packages

Code Comparison

MINGW-packages (PKGBUILD example):

pkgname=example
pkgver=1.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="Example package"
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
url="https://example.com"
license=('GPL')
source=("$pkgname-$pkgver.tar.gz")
md5sums=('SKIP')

build() {
  cd "$srcdir/$pkgname-$pkgver"
  ./configure --prefix=/mingw64
  make
}

MXE (Makefile example):

PKG             := example
$(PKG)_VERSION  := 1.0
$(PKG)_CHECKSUM := 0123456789abcdef
$(PKG)_URL      := https://example.com/$(PKG)-$($(PKG)_VERSION).tar.gz
$(PKG)_DEPS     := cc zlib libpng

define $(PKG)_BUILD
    cd '$(BUILD_DIR)' && $(SOURCE_DIR)/configure \
        $(MXE_CONFIGURE_OPTS)
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j '$(JOBS)'
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j 1 install
endef

Pros of termux-packages

• Designed specifically for Android, offering a wide range of packages optimized for mobile devices
• Regularly updated with new packages and improvements for the Termux ecosystem
• Supports a broader range of architectures, including ARM and x86 for Android devices

Cons of termux-packages

• Limited to Android platform, not suitable for cross-compilation to other operating systems
• May have fewer packages available compared to MXE's extensive Windows-targeted library

Code Comparison

termux-packages build script example:

TERMUX_PKG_HOMEPAGE=https://example.com
TERMUX_PKG_DESCRIPTION="Example package"
TERMUX_PKG_VERSION=1.0.0
TERMUX_PKG_SRCURL=https://example.com/source-${TERMUX_PKG_VERSION}.tar.gz
TERMUX_PKG_SHA256=abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890

termux_step_make() {
    make
}

MXE build script example:

PKG             := example
$(PKG)_VERSION  := 1.0.0
$(PKG)_CHECKSUM := abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890
$(PKG)_SUBDIR   := $(PKG)-$($(PKG)_VERSION)
$(PKG)_FILE     := $(PKG)-$($(PKG)_VERSION).tar.gz
$(PKG)_URL      := https://example.com/$($(PKG)_FILE)
$(PKG)_DEPS     := cc zlib

define $(PKG)_BUILD
    cd '$(BUILD_DIR)' && $(SOURCE_DIR)/configure \
        $(MXE_CONFIGURE_OPTS)
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j '$(JOBS)'
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j 1 install
endef

Pros of void-packages

• Supports a wider range of packages and architectures
• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Offers a more comprehensive package management system

Cons of void-packages

• Steeper learning curve for newcomers
• Requires more system resources for package building

Code Comparison

void-packages:

./xbps-src pkg <package_name>
./xbps-src install <package_name>

mxe:

make <package_name>

Summary

void-packages is a more versatile and actively maintained package management system for Void Linux, offering support for a wide range of packages and architectures. It provides a comprehensive solution for building and managing packages, but may require more system resources and have a steeper learning curve compared to mxe.

mxe, on the other hand, is specifically designed for cross-compiling Windows programs on Unix-like systems. It has a simpler build process and is more focused on its specific use case, making it easier to use for beginners but less flexible in terms of package variety and system support.

Both projects serve different purposes and cater to different user needs, with void-packages being more suitable for general package management on Void Linux, while mxe excels in cross-compiling Windows applications on Unix-like systems.

Pros of Gentoo

• Offers a complete Linux distribution with a vast package ecosystem
• Provides fine-grained control over system configuration and optimization
• Supports multiple architectures and platforms

Cons of Gentoo

• Requires more time and expertise to set up and maintain
• Can be resource-intensive during package compilation
• Has a steeper learning curve for newcomers

Code Comparison

MXE (example Makefile):

include src/mxe-conf.mk

PKG             := example
$(PKG)_VERSION  := 1.0.0
$(PKG)_CHECKSUM := 0123456789abcdef
$(PKG)_URL      := https://example.com/$(PKG)-$($(PKG)_VERSION).tar.gz
$(PKG)_DEPS     := cc zlib libpng

define $(PKG)_BUILD
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j '$(JOBS)' CFLAGS='-O2'
    $(MAKE) -C '$(BUILD_DIR)' -j 1 install
endef

Gentoo (example ebuild):

EAPI=7

DESCRIPTION="Example package"
HOMEPAGE="https://example.com"
SRC_URI="https://example.com/${P}.tar.gz"

LICENSE="GPL-2"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="amd64 x86"
IUSE="png"

DEPEND="
    sys-libs/zlib
    png? ( media-libs/libpng )
"
RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"

src_configure() {
    econf $(use_with png)
}

Pros of nixpkgs

• Broader scope, covering entire operating system packages
• Declarative and reproducible system configuration
• Supports multiple versions of packages coexisting

Cons of nixpkgs

• Steeper learning curve due to Nix language and concepts
• Larger resource footprint for full system management
• Less focused on cross-compilation compared to MXE

Code Comparison

MXE (Makefile):

define $(PKG)_BUILD
    cd '$(SOURCE_DIR)' && ./configure \
        --host='$(TARGET)' \
        --disable-shared \
        --prefix='$(PREFIX)/$(TARGET)'
    $(MAKE) -C '$(SOURCE_DIR)' -j '$(JOBS)' install
endef

nixpkgs (Nix expression):

stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
  pname = "example";
  version = "1.0.0";
  src = fetchurl {
    url = "https://example.com/${pname}-${version}.tar.gz";
    sha256 = "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000";
  };
}

MXE focuses on cross-compilation for Windows using familiar Makefiles, while nixpkgs uses Nix expressions for package definitions across various platforms. MXE's approach is more straightforward for its specific use case, while nixpkgs offers greater flexibility and system-wide integration at the cost of increased complexity.