On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 01:42:55PM +0100, Joost van der Sluis wrote: > A little bit? Did you read my other mail on the subject: > > "That's an idea, but then we would be incompatible with upstream. I can > try to patch the configuration files of fpc so that it searches for > these binaries in /usr/x86_64-pc-fpc/sys-root/fpc/lib. But I prefer the > 'standard' location. Also because other packages based in fpc relay on > that. This is based on a misunderstanding of the packaging guidelines. The Fedora MinGW cross-compiler itself does not live in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32, it lives in the usual places like /usr/bin and /usr/lib (it's a native Fedora executable, so obviously this is where it should go). $ which i686-pc-mingw32-gcc /usr/bin/i686-pc-mingw32-gcc $ ls /usr/lib64/gcc/i686-pc-mingw32/4.3.2/ crtbegin.o include-fixed libssp.a libstdc++.a crtend.o install-tools libssp.la libstdc++.la crtfastmath.o libgcc.a libssp_nonshared.a libsupc++.a include libgcov.a libssp_nonshared.la libsupc++.la > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW > > Another thing, the MinGW packaging guidelines needs the packages to have > a 'MinGw' prefix, not suffix. > > My example used a suffix, like 'fpc-win32'. Do you think I should use > 'win32-fpc' instead? Again: this sounds logical when you have a complete > build-environment or something like that. But in this case I think > 'fpc-win32' is more logical. You should use a prefix so that autoconf knows how to find your cross-compiler. Read the documentation for AC_CHECK_TOOL. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
