[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: supporting closed source operating systems?



On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Matt Domsch <matt domsch com> wrote:
> why is mingw being treated (or proposed as being treated) differently
> than a Secondary Architecture?  We already have a lot of
> infrastructure and policy in place for that; so it's not a different
> architecture, but a different underlying OS - same idea to me...

Except its explictly a cross compiler.  MinGW itself needs to be part
of a traditional "arch" of Fedora...because it is a linux executable
itself.

Now everything built witn MinGW or any other cross-compiler is no
longer a native executable or library...those are the things I worry
about.  Can we put all of those things into a separate repo patterned
on secondary arch repos..even though that repo is not self-hosting?

Or to put it another way. Can we craft a general policy that fits how
we treat any cross-compiled payload moving forward?  Whatever we
decide for MinGW.. needs to work equally well when I put NBC forward
as a cross-compiler for the Lego Mindstorm NXT processor.  I will very
much desire to build libraries and binaries packaged in such a way
that it makes it easier for people to do Mindstorm NXT development
with the nbc compiler...even though noone will be able to run those
programs directly inside Fedora.

Can we frame MinGW compiled payloads as well as nbc compiled payloads
a distinct repositories, using policy and infrastructure setup to
support the concept of secondary arches?

-jef"I'm not kidding about nbc..."spaleta


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]