Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 09:07:58AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Can you list some of the impacts a separate repository would impact >> MingW if #3 was changed to enabled by default? > > I'm not really hung up on the whole repository thing. I just think > it's extra administrative make-work, and not just for me, but for > hard-working rel-eng people. Other large projects seem to get along > without needing to be confined to an extra repository. > Thanks! There is extra work this way but Jef has been asking questions of the infrastructure team so it's something that people have evaluated. SO far there haven't been any problems raised, just the work of setting up the repos. >>> 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. >>> >> rpm -q getext >> gettext-0.17-4.fc9.i386 >> :-) > > The library is a part of glibc. On Windows we compile the library > separately because there ain't no glibc ... > We need some clarification in the policy about this. We have a gettext package in Fedora which contains the source code to build the library. But we disable building that specific library because glibc provides the functionality. Does this fit the "natively available" definition? Also, we still want to think about the generic case of which gettext and NSIS are examples... are there cases where we want to build something for a Windows environment using MingW where we would not desire an equivalent to run under Fedora? >> I think that some discussion of this is warranted, though. It would be >> desirable to have a program that can run on Linux and generate Windows >> installers, for instance, but do we want to force our developers to do >> the work of adapting a Windows program like NSIS installer to run on >> Linux natively? > > I've already done this. Not checked into the repo yet, but I'll try > to check it in later today. > Very nice! So, was this worthwhile? Is it something that the policy should codify for the generic case as a must do, something it should recommend doing, or something that it should stay altogether silent on? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
