On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (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). You can't make any assurances that additional community members will not want additional libraries nor applications to be included. You have a very narrow view as to what you need right now with regard to a development environment for a specific task. It doesn't take much to realize, even from the infrastructure ticket that the libraries requested can mushroom into something larger than the set of libraries you are currently envisioning. > 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. If its a separate repo it will need its own signing key. If its not a stand alone repo, then that requirement is void. > > 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 This draft does not address the things which came out of the FAB discussion thread. > No "1000 ft views" in here. Indeed your technical draft does not make any effort to address project policy issues as brought to and discussed in the advisory-list. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
