[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:06:59AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate
> > > repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
> > > Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW  just
> > > because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
> > > is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
> > 
> > Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although
> > it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools
> > themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora.  The libraries compiled
> > against it for windows use are what should be in another repo.
> 
> [I'm going to prepare something more detailed, hopefully integrating
> efforts with the cross-compiler folks, but just on these two points ...]
> 
> If we ship only the four base packages (mingw-gcc, mingw-binutils,
> mingw-w32api and mingw-runtime) then the only software that can be
> compiled is software which doesn't use any libraries.  That's pretty
> restrictive.
This is way too restrictive. In fact, such a restriction closes out 
any cross-toolchain from Fedora.

> > My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge spec files
> > in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to
> > be done outside our cvs repo as well.
Building cross-toolchains inevitably needs some target-libraries. If you
want to see cross-toolchain packages in Fedora, these target-libraries
must be shipped as part of Fedora.

Ralf