I would just like to direct people on the fedora-advisory-board list to my previous reply here, which should address all of Jeff's questions: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-July/msg00043.html except for this one: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:53:18PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Is this really an appropriate use of our Project mirroring and > repository resources? How much bigger would the repository end up > being if all our existing libraries were repackaged as windows DLLs? Leaving aside the fact that it's completely unrealistic to think anyone could recompile every Fedora library, and no one is proposing to do this anyway (see my answer above), I do have some figures on how big the MinGW RPMs are on my (32 bit) machine compared to the ordinary Fedora RPMs [0]: 4.1M mingw-libxml2-2.6.32-1.fc10.i386.rpm 847K libxml2-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm 1.4M libxml2-devel-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm 108K mingw-zlib-1.2.3-1.fc10.i386.rpm 75K zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm 43K zlib-devel-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm 3.3M mingw-gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 390K gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 2.5M gnutls-devel-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 128K gnutls-utils-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm [1] If we carry out a plan of building from the same SRPM then there shouldn't be any significant increase there. There are no debuginfo packages for MinGW. Rich. [0] Note that there is no foo / foo-devel split in the mingw packages. [1] Windows utilities (certtool.exe etc) are included in the mingw-gnutls package at present. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
