On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 01:13:29PM +0100, Andy Green wrote: > > I am not forgetting that, all I said was that I just don't think we > > should pile every change to Fedora that could ever be useful on > > embedded targets together into one patch repository and then present > > that as a fait accomplis 'Fedora ARM patch set'. > > Well, clearly that wouldn't be a Fedora ARM patch set any more, so fair > enough. I agree your patches are a separate issue, it's another arch > support added for native compile same as say s390 and that is fine. Right. > This all came up on the same thread but talking about building cross > isn't saying anything about your patches at all or trying to tie them to > the issue of cross compiling. > > Fedora targeting OLPC and now ARM though, the spread of system > capability being aimed at is clearly increasing over time, not > decreasing. That does make more reasons to look not only at cross but > at more than One True Configuration for some core packages that are in > themselves quite configurable at compile time. Ideally, I'd just like to be able to say "Build me a copy of F8 without selinux and without java, but with X support." etc, but this is not necessarily something that other Fedora developers would be interested in, so not necessarily something I should be bothering other developers with, IMHO, at least not at this point. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
