On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:13:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > This is where it gets non-scalable if we have a forked SPEC for every > library we want to build for mingw. We need to make it easy for the > maintainence of all the libs to be devolved to the existing maintainers > of the libraries, preferably with little-to-no extra work for these > maintainers. We shouldn't get into the world of maintaining two > independant copies of things like GNUTLS, libpng, libvirt, etc. > > If we can get away with only having mingw custom packages for gcc,binutils, > and the runtime, and then sub-RPM for all the other bits I'd be reasonably > satisfied. I think it's reasonable to have a 'sample' spec file snippet for existing maintainers to use & modify when they feel they want to add MinGW support. I'll give it a go with some existing libraries to see what they would look like. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
