2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dear Fedora developers,
>>>
>>> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
>>> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
>>> dependencies, etc.
>>>
>>
>> Would it be technically feasible to have a different buildroot for arch
>> and noarch packages?
> What would this be useful for?
The thought would be that (almost all) noarch packages don't need gcc, so the
noarch buildroot could exclude gcc without impacting existing packages.
I was going to say the same about noarch/arched packages and gcc assumption, also that I don't see any "simplification" in hardcoding the default compiler everywhere, specially as It probably depends
on the build target . I remember other distros were using
cross-compiler in buildroot and that was working pretty fine if the
default "compiler" wasn't needlessly assumed.
Another case about the default buildroot is compiler version, one could rely on a newer gcc (such as with a gcc5 package) and rebuild any packages with this new buildroot environment without tweaking any sources packages.
Another case about the default buildroot is compiler version, one could rely on a newer gcc (such as with a gcc5 package) and rebuild any packages with this new buildroot environment without tweaking any sources packages.
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
