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


On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 16:02 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> 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
> architecture.
> 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).

I think all this arguing about "number of packages" is a red herring.
This all smacks of misguided political compromise where pointless
obstructions are put in place in an attempt to appeal to both sides.
This kind of bullshit has no place in an engineering organization. If we
could point to a repo overflowing with mingw packages, there might be a
point to this. But right now it's purely "oh there might be a lot of
them!" which is not sound engineering practice, it's hypothetical
bullshitty handwaving.

Either we commit 100% to having a Win32 toolchain in Fedora or we don't
bother. No compromises.

> (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.

It's another pointless obstruction. If a cross-package meets licensing
guidelines, why is it not be acceptable?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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