On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:06:59AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although > > it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools > > themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora. The libraries compiled > > against it for windows use are what should be in another repo. > > [I'm going to prepare something more detailed, hopefully integrating > efforts with the cross-compiler folks, but just on these two points ...] > > If we ship only the four base packages (mingw-gcc, mingw-binutils, > mingw-w32api and mingw-runtime) then the only software that can be > compiled is software which doesn't use any libraries. That's pretty > restrictive. This is way too restrictive. In fact, such a restriction closes out any cross-toolchain from Fedora. > > My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge spec files > > in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to > > be done outside our cvs repo as well. Building cross-toolchains inevitably needs some target-libraries. If you want to see cross-toolchain packages in Fedora, these target-libraries must be shipped as part of Fedora. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
