On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 15:46 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:30:10PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:15:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I've got a self-building, mostly working set of Fedora packages for > > > the MinGW cross-compiler (no optional libraries yet). You can get the > > > spec files and instructions by doing: > > > > > > hg clone http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel > > > > What primarily concerns me is that plan around keeping this in sync > > with patches/updates to the main gcc, binutils, libpng, libgcrypt, > > gnutls, etc RPMS already in Fedora. > > > > The idea of maintaining 2 near identical specs & builds for all these > > packages isn't that nice, particularly since many of these are security > > sensitive packages > > So there's a bit of confusion going around, partly my own. > > Mingw-binutils (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454408) > starts with a forked version of binutils maintained by mingw. They > have their own release schedule for this so I'm not sure how viable it > is to have a single binutils SPEC file generating both the normal > binutils and a 'binutils-mingw' subpackage. (Ignoring for now whether > or not the Fedora binutils maintainer is even interested in this). >From my experience, using a unified spec is non-viable. All it does is to add avoidable package deps and unnecessarily complicates things, because a MinGW-binutils is widely independent from Linux (and Fedora). Furthermore, binutils is comparatively small, easy to package and easy to maintain - GCC is a completely different matter. > Mingw-gcc (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410) starts > from plain gcc 4.3.1 source, so combining these into Fedora's gcc > package might be more hopeful. I would not do this - MinGW is a different OS, suffers from different issues and has a different upstream (RH-branch vs. FSF-trunk vs. MinGW hacked GCC). > However there are some nasty > dependencies (mingw-runtime and mingw-w32api, neither of which can be > built ab initio because of circular dependencies) and I suspect that > any time there is any sort of mingw related trouble with this package, > the gcc-mingw subpackage will be the first to be dropped. I don't > want this. > As for the remainder we get into asking question like -- should we > generate the mingw-gnutls library (as an example) from the main gnutls > SPEC file? Same as above. I would not want to merge any MinGW package's specs with Linux/Fedoras. They share a common upstream somewhere, but MinGW's upstream isn't necessarily identical to Fedora. > There are going to be dozens of such libraries and we'll > have to coordinate with a large number of existing Fedora contributors > to make this happen. Only if you merge them. IMO, this is not useful for cross-toolchains, because you actually will want to use their sources, not Fedoras. For my own cross-toolchains, I even go one step further - I repackage a cross-toolchain's library-binaries, and only build the cross-tools, because only a target's binaries are guaranteed to be compatible with the "native upstream". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
