Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes: > Yes, I withdrew two packages of mine after they had been lingering > around in the queue for 14 months and turned away from fedora to > shipping them via a 3rd party repo, instead. Are you referring to the rtems cross-compilers? I'm willing to get these through review for you (I can review packages from people who don't need a sponsor now that I own a package) if you do the same with my tigcc cross-toolchain package once I submit it. (It needs some work: I need to change the prefix away from /usr/local/tigcc to something more in line with the FHS and improve the way I get the binaries into the PATH (TIGCC only needs 2 binaries in the path, both with unique names: tigcc and tprbuilder), and I need to zap the optional non-Free A68k assembler from the tarball. That's why I haven't submitted it yet.) I'm currently also using the "third-party repository" solution: http://repo.calcforge.org I just hope nobody will complain about policies not being enforced during the reviews. I do think cross-compiler packages should also follow policies where possible. But one area where it's not possible is bending the FHS with the separate prefix, which has already been agreed upon by pretty much all the people interested in cross compilers. There could be more, but I need to look at your packages to tell. Speaking of the prefix: would /usr/tigcc be acceptable or should I use something like /usr/m68k-ti-tigcc? The patched GCC and GNU as in TIGCC don't care either way, nor do the other components in the toolchain (all non-GNU Free Software). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
