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

Re: Including windows-binary files for cross compiling into package

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:42:56PM +0100, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:15 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > If it's true cross support, then that should be a noarch package and the
> > file names it uses should not depend on %{_lib} that way.  
> > Arguably it even belongs in %{_sharedir}, since it is fixed binary content
> > across all host machines.
> Those files are not architecture independent. They are somewhat similar
> to .o files. They contain the run time library for the language,
> compiled to native windows object files. If you want to compile your own
> program with them afterwards, they are linked together into a windows
> executable.
> You could argue that they should belong in a -devel package. But since
> this package is a compiler, we decided not to split it up into a devel
> package and a non-devel package. As that would be pointless, as one will
> not work without the other.

Sorry, I'm late on this one.  Yes the files *are* arch independent
from the point of view of the host, so they should be noarch.  The
real problem is that RPM and the rest of the toolchain doesn't
understand the cross-compilation situation at all.

Anyway you may find the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines to be
helpful, and it would be useful to make your package compatible with
the other ones, even if that deviates from upstream a little bit.


We've also packaged some things, such as the OCaml cross-compiler,
which sound very similar to the Pascal case you describe.


Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.

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