So as I mentioned before we have an OCaml Windows cross-compiler as part of the Fedora MinGW project: http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/ (click 'manifest' then 'ocaml' or the 'ocaml-*' subdirectories) mingw32-ocaml - the cross-compiler (native Fedora prog) mingw32-ocaml-calendar - cross-compiled OCaml Calendar library mingw32-ocaml-csv - cross-compiled OCaml CSV library mingw32-ocaml-curses - cross-compiled OCaml curses bindings mingw32-ocaml-extlib - cross-compiled OCaml extlib (library) mingw32-ocaml-findlib - (this just has a single config file) mingw32-ocaml-lablgl - cross-compiled OCaml OpenGL bindings mingw32-ocaml-lablgtk - cross-compiled OCaml Gtk bindings mingw32-ocaml-libvirt - cross-compiled OCaml libvirt bindings mingw32-ocaml-xml-light - cross-compiled OCaml XML library When we were doing the original packaging, we explored the option of building the MinGW packages as subpackages of the native Fedora packages, eg: the gnutls specfile would contain the '-n mingw32-gnutls' subpackage. This would have made it simpler to keep the packages in synch with native Fedora, but we felt that native packagers wouldn't be so happy about this. They wouldn't be expert in MinGW packaging, and would drop the MinGW subpackage at the first sign of trouble. However, since I'm in the unique position of maintaining most of the corresponding ocaml-* (native) and mingw32-ocaml-* (cross-compiled) packages, I would like to ask whether I can create the packages above and others in future as subpackages of the already approved ocaml-* native packages. I'm not looking for any exception to the relevant packaging guidelines, which I would try to follow (excepting any mistakes). If you want to see what some RPMs look like, see: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-10/x86_64/RPMS/ Thoughts? I set follow-ups to the fedora-packaging list. Rich. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
