contributing a software through bugzilla
Kevin Kofler
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Sat Apr 28 15:37:41 UTC 2007
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 <at> freenet.de> writes:
> Yes, I withdrew two packages of mine after they had been lingering
> around in the queue for 14 months and turned away from fedora to
> shipping them via a 3rd party repo, instead.
Are you referring to the rtems cross-compilers? I'm willing to get these
through review for you (I can review packages from people who don't need a
sponsor now that I own a package) if you do the same with my tigcc
cross-toolchain package once I submit it. (It needs some work: I need to change
the prefix away from /usr/local/tigcc to something more in line with the FHS
and improve the way I get the binaries into the PATH (TIGCC only needs 2
binaries in the path, both with unique names: tigcc and tprbuilder), and I need
to zap the optional non-Free A68k assembler from the tarball. That's why I
haven't submitted it yet.) I'm currently also using the "third-party
repository" solution:
http://repo.calcforge.org
I just hope nobody will complain about policies not being enforced during the
reviews. I do think cross-compiler packages should also follow policies where
possible. But one area where it's not possible is bending the FHS with the
separate prefix, which has already been agreed upon by pretty much all the
people interested in cross compilers. There could be more, but I need to look
at your packages to tell.
Speaking of the prefix: would /usr/tigcc be acceptable or should I use
something like /usr/m68k-ti-tigcc? The patched GCC and GNU as in TIGCC don't
care either way, nor do the other components in the toolchain (all non-GNU Free
Software).
Kevin Kofler
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list