On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:41:41AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RWMJ" == Richard W M Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > RWMJ> Everyone's happy with me to go ahead with this? > > You have to torture reality pretty badly to assume that silence > somehow implies happiness. Maybe people are just annoyed to see this > come up again. I was a bit surprised there was no response from the first email, and the second email was an opportunity to bring this to peoples' attention again. I haven't made any changes yet to the packages, precisely because I wanted to hear what people had to say and ensure there was general agreement first. > So here's one from someone who was never all that comfortable with all > of this Windows support in the first place: > > During the discussions you were somewhat adamant about the limited number > of Windows library packages that your proposal would entail. You > quoted numbers and relatively small size requirements as evidence that > this was no big deal. This is still the case. Even with all the packages we've done, plus the OCaml subpackages, the whole of mingw is under a gigabyte (src + noarch RPMs). At the time we estimated 800 MB, so we have gone slightly over our estimate, but at the same time we've expanded the scope to include C++ libraries like gtkmm. Still, I wouldn't really say that 1 GB is excessive. We have found a non-virt co-maintainer (Levente Farkas) for all the base packages too. > Now you're talking about taking what is > something of a niche package category (ocaml packages) and adding a > second level of niche-itude to them (windows cross-compilation > environment for ocaml packages) and I'm wondering if the overhead of > these packages was included in your initial figures and whether you > actually think that anyone other than you will actually use them. Yes, people in the OCaml community are excited by this. That may not be a community that is very visible to Fedora packagers I admit. > I mean, sure, if you're a packager and you can get someone to review > your packages, you can basically turn Fedora into your own personal > distro, with the specialized packages that you want already in there. > I don't think that's a bad thing. Even better if other people happen > to benefit from those packages. At some point, however, someone needs > to actually think about how the cost of this compares to the benefits. > > I do have a couple of other hands in the fray, though: > > As a package reviewer, I think you've already dropped a metric ass-ton > of packages on the review queue and I shudder to think that you would > consider actually adding more without spending at least a solid month > helping us review packages. Avoiding having to review another pile of > whatever-for-windows packages would be great. It's true that I have been negligent in doing very little review work. So I will try to change that. > As a Packaging Committee member, I would want you to at least add > sufficient comments to these specfiles to discourage anyone who might > want to package an ocaml module from using them as examples unless > they somehow want to maintain them for Windows as well. After taht > long review process we have what I think are a good set of ocaml > package guidelines with nice templates, and now you're proposing to > take the bulk of those packages away from that. OK, this is fair too. I usually encourage OCaml packagers to start out with: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Image:Packaging_OCaml_ocaml-foolib.spec linked from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/OCaml That doesn't currently include a mingw subpackage, and nor should it. Note that there are currently 70 OCaml packages in Fedora, and only a handful of those (10) were proposed to be cross-compiled, 2 of those being the cross-compiler itself. Rich. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
