On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > Again, to reiterate, the Board simply said that it was in support of > MinGW in Fedora, but it should be separated, and that FESCo should > handle the technical specifics. What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code is still just as open source as anything else in our repos. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
