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