On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am only pointing out the precedents and differences in this case, I've > no idea yet if we are in danger of slipping down a slope. I haven't seen anyone put forward any rationale by which to limit which libraries we distribute compiled against mingw. The libraries so far suggested are specifically targeted so libvirt can be more easily developed. But there's no bright line painted as to why we should not allow all libraries to be rebuild and packaged if people desire them. If we let the relatively narrow set of libraries be rebuilt for the virtualization development needs as part of our repository, then we are opening the door for all libraries to be rebuild and packaged. I haven't seen a credible argument to limit mingw rebuilds to just what libvirt needs. And quite frankly we shouldn't be setting limits on intended use. If we allow any mingw built libraries into a repository we control.. then we should let all libraries be rebuilt with mingw. We should not get into the business of trying to determine if one sort of development need for a library is more worthwhile than any other. So if we let in what libvirt needs rebuilt in mingw, I'm pretty sure we are going to be pressed into allowing more libraries down the line, as people find more reasons to want to cross compile. That's potentially a lot of additional space to be consumed in the main repository we ask mirrors to carry. I'm not sure any of the mingw rebuilt items should be in the main repository. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to exist..but I am saying that its probably best to distribute them as their own collection outside of the main repository -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board