Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mingw-binutils - MinGW Windows binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454408 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-08 09:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Not so fast with approving this. Well, I am packaging cross-toolchains for > 10 years (comprising mingw, cygwin and many others.). So I am familiar with many issues packagers typically trip over. > IMHO, having separate mingw SPEC files is totally unsustainable for > maintainence. I disagree. From my experience, anything but using a separate spec file, separate tarballs and separate patches is non-maintainable. > We need to build from the existing binutils SPEC file, Why? MinGW is not Linux, uses different sources, has a different upstream, suffers from different bugs, etc. > perhaps > just adding a sub-RPM with the mingw build of it (cf kernel SPEC which builds > many sub-RPMs with different variants, PAE, SMP, UP, etc) MinGW is not a variant of Linux. MinGW is a different OS with an independent upstream, with different libraries, different GCC and many other differences. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review