On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 09:31:14PM +0300, Susi Lehtola wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:01:14 -0700 > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:22:32AM +0300, Susi Lehtola wrote: > > > Is it OK if I do step a) locally and use the pregenerated sources > > > for the EPEL branches? The Fedora branches would still do the whole > > > bootstrap process. > > > > Is this for bootstrap-only? ie: You can build once with the locally > > generated (a) and then immediately rebuild the package using the > > compiler in the just-built package? That can probably get an > > exception from the FPC using the bootstrap guidelines fairly easily. > > > > If the EPEL branches will always have to have step (a) pregenerated > > then the outlook is a lot more grim but we can look at that if we > > have to. > > The library is for computing special six-dimensional integrals, for > which there are many possible ways to reach the wanted result using > recursion relations. The compiler has some heuristics to determine what > is the shortest path, and generates the code that implements this path. > Open an FPC request... I'm not too sure I'd vote to approve but I'm only one of the members. probably want to be sure it's clear what is being pregenerated (sounds like one source code format to another). The reasons I probably wouldn't vote to approve with my current understanding of the situation is that you then can't make upstreamable changes directly to the package. You'd have to make changes to the source on your Fedora system, pregenerate new sources there, then import those into the EPEL package. It also removes auditability from the package. We no longer have a direct link from upstream to the sources on pkgs.fedoraproject.org -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpcHvxduCC9W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
