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

Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without noticing me

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 01:22:12PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Looking at things the other way, a lot of the things that you claim are
>> specific for MinGW whereas FESCo is designing something that applies to
>> cross-compilation in general.
> This just backs up what I said.
> If you'd spent time porting a package to MinGW you'd see that
> cross-compilation is a minor and rather insignificant part of the
> whole process.  You just do './configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32' and
> that does the whole cross-compilation thing.  The complicated stuff is
> when you get 20 pages of compiler errors because the program assumes
> it can make POSIX calls on a system which only has a Win32 API (no
> libc for you).
> So this whole business of MinGW being "applicable to cross-compilation
> in general" seems (from my point of view) to be detached from reality.
> If you want to do a package or two and then come back from a position
> of knowledge on this subject, I'd appreciate it, because FESCo and the
> other committees _ought_ to be approaching these decisions from a
> position of technical excellence.

Does the download repository separation make a difference to built
packages or building packages?

Can we build the noarch packages proposed for the separate repository in
Fedora without a cross compiler?

The committee to deal with your concerns about the building process is
the Fedora Packaging Committee.  The FPC has already passed the
Guidelines that you proposed.  Note that we did so without much prior
knowledge of MingW... but we did so by asking questions and listening to
your domain specific knowledge of *building packages* with MinGW.

FESCo is looking into *distributing* the packages that you've built
using those Guidelines along with the rest of Fedora.  This is an
entirely different piece of the puzzle than building packages.  Please
criticise FESCo more when you have experience distributing a release or
two of a Linux distribution to thousands of machines through a network
of mirrors with updates that surpass the size of the original release.
Until then, FESCo's decision to ask for domain specific knowledge of how
this should be done from rel-eng and infrastructure seems entirely
appropriate.  If rel-eng and infrastructure tell FESCo that distributing
this via a separate repo is too much work then FESCo, rel-eng, and
infrastructure will have to hash out a different plan for putting
cross-compiled libraries in the distro.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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