On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Poelstra <poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > == Mingw == I'm going to editorialize a little and reorder the bullets in doing so. > * Board supports such an effort as long as it is self contained and > separated from the main package respository > ** Leave technical details and implementation to FESCo >From a broad Project policy perspective we think that cross-compiling is a new and different enough concept to separated out from the main repository offering as a new subproject endeavor. How exactly that is done, is something we want FESCo to take up. The Board is deliberately avoiding making specific implementation choices, but we did talk through enough of the possibilities so I was confident that this can be implemented without asking anyone to do the impossible with the available infrastructure. > * Fedora should be in support of furthering open source software even if it > doesn't run on Linux > ** How far should this be taken? FESCo also has a mandate to build policy associated with the packaging of the cross-compiled libraries. And while the Board didn't make the mandate, I have a personal expectation that the packaging policies concerning cross-compiled libraries and applications will put a strong emphasis on requiring natively built versions of anything in the main repository before it can be considered for cross-compiling in the new mingw construct whatever it looks like. We have a long term interest in making sure we focus primarily on native libraries and applications. And while we don't have to be exclusive about it.. we must not undermine that focus as it relates to our primary project objective. My personal line is drawn thusly: If it can't be built natively for our distribution, then it can't be built in our buildsystem. If FESCo decides differently, I as a Board member would need to understand why. > ** Special casing each new instance of cross compiling > * Board expresses concern on potential future resource issues We can look at what is before us with mingw both narrowly and quite broadly. Looking quite narrowly, as to the specific purpose trying to be achieved with the libvirt cross-compiling using the mingw toolset, I don't think anyone has a problem with what is trying to be achieved. Making libvirt available as a technology on Windows will most likely make it easier for people to run Fedora and other linux distributions in real world environments. And as such the Board is comfortable allocating resources for that very narrow purpose. But looking more broadly, its far less clear that a resource allocation of existing project resources to enable a broad collection of cross-compiled items makes sense from a resource allocation point of view. Compared to everything else we could be doing, and aren't providing resources for.. including native secondary arch work going on in the community right now...we aren't able to justify providing all the hosting and cpu time to open up a general purpose mingw cross-compiled repository. The compromise here is to create the policy and process structure that is generally applicable to mingw cross-compiled payloads and to provide a small amount of space to start the subproject so that the libvirt work can go forward while providing some headroom to grow beyond libvirt based on contributor interest. Since this will be an explicitly constrained space, I fully expect the submission process to this structure to be more demanding in response to enforced scarcity of hosting resources. The reality is, community members are going to have to bring external resources to the table to significantly extend the reach of this beyond a skeleton development environment needed for the libvirt development. And looking even more broadly...the existence of a process which supports mingw built payloads can not be used to justify any future cross-compiling desires. If another cross-compiler toolchain shows up in Fedora.. it does not automatically mean we are going to follow what we are doing with mingw and provide any resources what-so-ever to accommodate new cross-compiled payloads. Useful cross-compilers may make it in to the main repository as a set of tools, or not, based on existing packaging guidelines. But if anyone wants to use package cross-compiled items as part of this project, we will need to have the same sort of project impact discussion similar to what we are currently having with mingw. > # Ask SIG to fill out request for resources with Infrastructure the mingw SIG is going to have to work with FESCo concerning the implementation details on how to contain and separate the mingw compiled packages into its own corner of our project space. And once there is a plan in place infrastructure will need to allocate resources informed by that plan. > # Karsten to start a new thread on fedora-advisory-board concerning > trademarks I would encourage everyone to read over our objectives page in the wiki again before joining Karsten's thread concerning trademark usage which he'll be starting. If FESCo members or mingw SIG members need clarification as to what is being asked of them, do not hesitate to respond. -jef _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
