On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:59:53AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > RWMJ> In reality this is not the case - we only wish to rebuild a few > RWMJ> common libraries. > > I guess its important to know who the "we" is that you're speaking > for, and whether you intend for that set of people to be limited in > some way. Certainly don't want to limit it. Our repository is public and open for anyone to download and contribute. Anyone with a FAS account can join the SIG. hg clone http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/ & read the README file. > Because I honestly don't see the difference between what > you're proposing and, say, doing something like building KDE (and all > of its attendant libraries and requirements) for Windows. Besides > scale, of course. Sure, you have no intention of doing this, but who > can say that nobody else here wants to do so? Well we've built the whole of Gtk which was about 10 packages[*]. I don't know how many library packages are in KDE. Remember: not the whole of KDE, just libraries. Should KDE have a separate repo? What about Perl with its hundreds of CPAN libraries? I can point to any big project in Fedora already and ask if it should have a separate repository. Rich. [*] Packages ported to MinGW so far: atk cairo fontconfig freetype gettext glib2 gnutls gtk2 iconv jasper libgcrypt libgpg-error libjpeg libpng libvirt libxml2 pango pixman portablexdr zlib -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 68 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
