On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:03:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Can you comment on what part of his draft you find objectionable? Specifically three things: (1) It imposes upon us the need to use a separate repository, which is based on the false assumption that we will be rebuilding a substantial proportion of all Fedora packages, like some sort of secondary architecture. In reality this is not the case - we only wish to rebuild a few common libraries. Secondary architectures rebuild every package, including applications, which we have no intention of doing even if it were possible (which it isn't). (2) "All packages must first be natively available in Fedora before they can be in the MinGW repo" This is a considerable restriction. A useful Windows cross- development environment must include packages like NSIS installer, GNU gettext and PortableXDR, none of which would make sense as standalone Fedora packages. (3) "The repository definition(s) will be included in fedora-release but will be disabled by default." But no reason is given why this extra repository should be disabled by default. Much of the draft states the obvious, like "All packages submitted for MinGW repo must pass a formal review" and "any MinGW specific caveats must be documented in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines". And there's also the plain odd stuff like the requirement to use our own signing key. Anyway, I don't want to spend too long on this since the actual people doing the work are trying to produce a proper, detailed technical packaging draft here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW No "1000 ft views" in here. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
