Proposed SIG: Windows MinGW cross-compiler SIG

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:13:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> This is where it gets non-scalable if we have a forked SPEC for every
> library we want to build for mingw. We need to make it easy for the
> maintainence of all the libs to be devolved to the existing maintainers
> of the libraries, preferably with little-to-no extra work for these
> maintainers. We shouldn't get into the world of maintaining two
> independant copies of things like GNUTLS, libpng, libvirt, etc.
> 
> If we can get away with only having mingw custom packages for gcc,binutils,
> and the runtime, and then sub-RPM for all the other bits I'd be reasonably
> satisfied.

I think it's reasonable to have a 'sample' spec file snippet for
existing maintainers to use & modify when they feel they want to add
MinGW support.  I'll give it a go with some existing libraries to see
what they would look like.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora