[Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:
> I can see further use cases where providing a MinGW toolchain will
> benefit Fedora and F/LOSS.

The question is.. what is the appropriate size of the "toolchain" that
we provide as part of our distribution.  If we stop at just getting
MinGW into the distro as a useful tool...that's one thing.

But if we are then talking about allowing the use of MinGW or any
other cross compiler in our build process to generate a full range of
new packages and subpackages which contain windows DLLs variants of
general purpose libraries contained in separate packages that can be
installed on Fedora systems pulled from the Fedora repositories...
that is something else entirely.  I'm not sure this is something we
want to allow in our build system nor in our packaging.

If we have a specific need to build windows executables, like
migration aids or virtualization clients, then perhaps all of that
should be done outside of our traditional build and packaging system,
so that we are not pressured to rebuild and provide any and all
libraries as Windows DLLs.

Let me sum up where I'm leaning as to a policy statement:
* Building MinGW from sources as part of Fedora's repository offerings
seems acceptable to me.  I have no problem seeing cross compiler tools
packaged as linux executables.

* Using MinGW to rebuild anything else, so that we can make Windows
DLLs available in our base repository in binary packages..seems
inappropriate and sets a bad precedent.  How do we draw the line as to
what library source (which is distinct from the MinGW sources) we
allow or do not not rebuild and ship as DLLs?  Paint me a bright line,
because without a bright line the alternative is to allow all
libraries to be rebuilt and packages as part of the repository in this
way...and I just don't see how that is appropriate.  I don't want to
get suckered into a case by case basis where we weight the intended
reason for making a certain library available as a DLL.  If we have to
weigh intent, then it should be done outside the repository.  There's
nothing stopping us from creating whatever sort of DLLs we need for
Fedora Project window applications as part of our infrastructure
project for specific application needs..outside of the build system
meant to feed the general use repository.

*Having a 3rd party provide MinGW built library packages, and doing
the work necessary to make sure the depresolving actually works with
DLLs and EXEs rpm payloads seems very wise to me.

-jef