On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 15:53 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 15:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 11:08 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > > > of course when using > > > the binaries there is no circular dependency :-) > > Exactly. It also has another advantage: Nothing can be "more original" > > than the "original" - I.e. why rebuilding target libs when you can use > > the original files? > > Because those "target libs" are open source (wrapper) libs and have to > be build by someone, this is very different from a closed source UNIX > you mentioned where you don't have any other option but to use the > closed source libraries. To me, rebuilding something just because it can be done, is overengineering, because 1. There is no guarantee these cross built files will identical to the "original" files. 2. You are building cross, to run these files on a target system, i.e. these files must be provided by somebody for the "target system". 3. Target files from a Linux perspective are just "meaningless binary data files", just like any other binary files (jpegs, sound files). > And the "original" in this case would be > Microsoft libraries, and not some hacked up mingw-runtime and > w32api ;-) Well, mingw does not have any build-time dependency on M$-libs. It only has implicit run-time deps on M$-libs. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
