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

Re: Plan for tomorrows (20080910) FESCO meeting

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:03:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Can you comment on what part of his draft you find objectionable?

Specifically three things:

(1) It imposes upon us the need to use a separate repository, which is
based on the false assumption that we will be rebuilding a substantial
proportion of all Fedora packages, like some sort of secondary

In reality this is not the case - we only wish to rebuild a few common
libraries.  Secondary architectures rebuild every package, including
applications, which we have no intention of doing even if it were
possible (which it isn't).

(2) "All packages must first be natively available in Fedora before
they can be in the MinGW repo"

This is a considerable restriction.  A useful Windows cross-
development environment must include packages like NSIS installer, GNU
gettext and PortableXDR, none of which would make sense as standalone
Fedora packages.

(3) "The repository definition(s) will be included in fedora-release
but will be disabled by default."

But no reason is given why this extra repository should be disabled by

Much of the draft states the obvious, like "All packages submitted for
MinGW repo must pass a formal review" and "any MinGW specific caveats
must be documented in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines".  And there's
also the plain odd stuff like the requirement to use our own signing

Anyway, I don't want to spend too long on this since the actual people
doing the work are trying to produce a proper, detailed technical
packaging draft here:


No "1000 ft views" in here.


Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine.  Supports Linux and Windows.

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