FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-12-2008, 02:36 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There was some weird politics from the Fedora board who had a secret
> meeting (no records) without telling the MinGW SIG before nor
> informing anyone after. I only found out about the secret meeting a
> week later quite by chance. As a result I got a bit hacked off about
> the whole thing.

Ahem. Nice try, but keep the straw men to yourself.

Fedora Board meetings, with the exception of the public IRC meetings,
are always "private". This is due to discussion of a multitude of
sensitive topics, often legal in nature, but sometimes political as
well. These meetings happen weekly, and summaries are posted to the
public (screened for sensitive material of course). They can also be
found on our wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings

Also, if you'll /read/ the summary,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15#Mingw you'll
find that the board was mostly supportive of your efforts, and asked
FESCo to handle the technical details and implementation.

Often times the topics the board chooses to discuss come up only at the
meeting, where there isn't really an opportunity to broadcast the fact.
Many times when this happens, it is noted that we should have a subject
matter expert join the meeting, or we'll table the item until such time
that said subject matter expert can be made available.

Nothing nefarious to see here, please move along.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 02:49 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 10:36 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > There was some weird politics from the Fedora board who had a secret
> > meeting (no records) without telling the MinGW SIG before nor
> > informing anyone after. I only found out about the secret meeting a
> > week later quite by chance. As a result I got a bit hacked off about
> > the whole thing.
>
> Ahem. Nice try, but keep the straw men to yourself.
>
> Fedora Board meetings, with the exception of the public IRC meetings,
> are always "private". This is due to discussion of a multitude of
> sensitive topics, often legal in nature, but sometimes political as
> well. These meetings happen weekly, and summaries are posted to the
> public (screened for sensitive material of course). They can also be
> found on our wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings
>
> Also, if you'll /read/ the summary,
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15#Mingw you'll
> find that the board was mostly supportive of your efforts, and asked
> FESCo to handle the technical details and implementation.
>
> Often times the topics the board chooses to discuss come up only at the
> meeting, where there isn't really an opportunity to broadcast the fact.
> Many times when this happens, it is noted that we should have a subject
> matter expert join the meeting, or we'll table the item until such time
> that said subject matter expert can be made available.
>
> Nothing nefarious to see here, please move along.

The notes for all meetings are published on the fedora-advisory-board
list, too. That list, among others, is where topics frequently arise
that are added to our weekly agenda.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 02:58 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:36:14AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > There was some weird politics from the Fedora board who had a secret
> > meeting (no records) without telling the MinGW SIG before nor
> > informing anyone after. I only found out about the secret meeting a
> > week later quite by chance. As a result I got a bit hacked off about
> > the whole thing.
>
> Ahem. Nice try, but keep the straw men to yourself.
>
> Fedora Board meetings, with the exception of the public IRC meetings,
> are always "private". This is due to discussion of a multitude of
> sensitive topics, often legal in nature, but sometimes political as
> well. These meetings happen weekly, and summaries are posted to the
> public (screened for sensitive material of course). They can also be
> found on our wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings
>
> Also, if you'll /read/ the summary,
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15#Mingw you'll
> find that the board was mostly supportive of your efforts, and asked
> FESCo to handle the technical details and implementation.
>
> Often times the topics the board chooses to discuss come up only at the
> meeting, where there isn't really an opportunity to broadcast the fact.
> Many times when this happens, it is noted that we should have a subject
> matter expert join the meeting, or we'll table the item until such time
> that said subject matter expert can be made available.
>
> Nothing nefarious to see here, please move along.

I'm reminded of a passage from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
which seems pertinent:

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a
locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

The fact that the Board has meetings in private and publishes minutes
somewhere on the net _does not_ exclude them from being courteous to
the people they are discussing. And at the very least _inform them
directly of decisions that were made_, and _make detailed reasoning
available to them_ so they can understand why those decisions were
made. I think this decision was misinformed. But maybe it isn't
misinformed - no idea, because there is no IRC log of the meeting[1].

Wikipedia tells me that:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent's position"

This is not my misrepresentation of your position. It is how I, in
particular, and others in the MinGW team felt after finding out
accidentally that the meeting had happened.

Anyhow, enough of this. Apparently I am to apologise for
misrepresenting the Board, so please accept my apology. I will have a
look at the MinGW packages when I have time, and/or when someone sends
some patches to fix the remaining technical issues.

Rich.

[1] Apparently it was held by phone, but I'm not sure of that.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 60 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 03:21 PM
Erik van Pienbroek
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

Op dinsdag 12-08-2008 om 15:58 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Richard
W.M. Jones:
> I will have a
> look at the MinGW packages when I have time, and/or when someone sends
> some patches to fix the remaining technical issues.

Do you have a list of the current technical issues you're coping with?
Maybe I can help.

Regards,

Erik van Pienbroek


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 03:37 PM
"Richard W.M. Jones"
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Do you have a list of the current technical issues you're coping with?
> Maybe I can help.

Yes, I did ... and in fact I was looking for it earlier today, but
couldn't find it. So let's make a list again:

(1) At the moment rpm runs programs like 'strip' on the Windows
libraries, which actually corrupts them. To avoid that we have hacked
the __os_install_post RPM variable so it basically doesn't do
anything.

However a better solution would be to run the correct strip binary
depending on the type of binary/library (ie. ordinary strip or
i686-pc-mingw32-strip as appropriate).

If you have a look at this file (not written by me) and search down
for __os_install_post, you'll see one working but rather ugly solution
to this:

http://www.annexia.org/tmp/i686-pc-mingw32-binutils.spec

Is it possible to do any better? Perhaps by patching RPM itself?

(2) Automatic dependency generation doesn't work, because the RPM
scripts involved don't know what to do with Windows DLLs. At the
moment all our spec files list dependencies manually, but it'd be
better to have it working properly.

(3) We can't use the RPM_OPT_FLAGS. For example, if you build on a 64
bit platform, then RPM_OPT_FLAGS contains '-m64' which is wrong
because our _target_ is 32 bit Windows. Also it contains things like
'-fstack-protector' which doesn't appear to work on MinGW. Should we
continue to try to "fix" RPM_OPT_FLAGS or give up on it completely?

(4) All cross-compilers based on gcc place files in directories such
as %{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/. This is not FHS compliant, but I've
been told it is an informal standard for cross-compilers and would be
very hard to change.

(5) Any remaining unknowns or fixes to:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW

(6) I couldn't get g++ compiled. On the other hand, Dan Berrange did
manage to make it compile, even though seemingly our systems are quite
similar (he was building on 64 bit though, if that made a difference).

----------------------------------------

The repository for our work is here:

hg clone http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/

You really should read the README file before attempting to build any
packages.

Rich.

--
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.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:58 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> The fact that the Board has meetings in private and publishes minutes
> somewhere on the net _does not_ exclude them from being courteous to
> the people they are discussing. And at the very least _inform them
> directly of decisions that were made_, and _make detailed reasoning
> available to them_ so they can understand why those decisions were
> made. I think this decision was misinformed. But maybe it isn't
> misinformed - no idea, because there is no IRC log of the meeting[1].

You really needed us to explicitly tell you that we decided FESCo should
handle the technical aspects of it? See, I considered it a
non-decision. A decision would have been "don't let it in", or "do this
with it". Instead we let things continue as they should, packaging
committee working on a packaging draft for it, FESCo with oversight. So
it's like we never actually talked about it, because nothing actually
happened.

This is why I'm so surprised that you're so worked up over this.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 04:08 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> The fact that the Board has meetings in private and publishes minutes
> somewhere on the net _does not_ exclude them from being courteous to
> the people they are discussing. And at the very least _inform them
> directly of decisions that were made_, and _make detailed reasoning
> available to them_ so they can understand why those decisions were
> made. I think this decision was misinformed. But maybe it isn't
> misinformed - no idea, because there is no IRC log of the meeting[1].


1) Most of the discussion was on the fab thread... the 60+ post fab
thread.. that Dennis gratefully pointed out, was probably too long.
There is absolutely nothing new in terms of reasoning in the board
meeting that was not stated on the fab thread. If I had heard anything
new that wasn't expressed in the fab thread already.. either Paul or I
would probably have badgered that person into taking the new policy
ideas to fab. The board discussion was directly informed by the fab
thread. The very same that thread that at least 5 different board
members made a post to and the one you participated in.

The only thing new was I got to pick spot's brain a weebit bit about
setting up additional branches in koji cuz he's done something similar
for perl in the past. That was at best tangential in an effort to
make sure we can actually can make a separated space in our
infrastructure for packages compiled with mingw...and had nothing to
do with the policy reasoning as to whether to allow or not allow mingw
compiled payloads in at all. And you were in the thread so you know
why I was interested in talking to someone about the technical bits.
In fact you challenged me to specifically find someone who understood
the infrastructure stuff better than I did in the fab thread. I did. I
found spot.<nick burns>You're welcome.</nick burns>

2) I said explicitly on the fab thread that I was going to take the
policy issue to the board meeting.... the fab thread you were in
on...did you ask to participate when I said that? No.

July 14th a post in the fab thread in a direct response to you:
"If we end up deciding that the dlls are generally not appropriate in
the main repository (and that is something I plan to discuss more at
tomorrow's board meeting) than we can certainly implement the
technical details to open a mingw addon repo constructed like EPEL..
if we want to allow it at all."

You sure as hell should have known that I was going to take this to
the board meeting.. we had been discussing this for DAYS on fab. And I
only took it to the Board have YOU said there was no more point in
continuing the discussion with me on FAB. How much more bloody
discussion did we need before I was suppose to take it to the board?
Another 60 posts?

If anything I should be the one to apologize, I've not finished the
strawman that fesco requested of me in regard to what the
infrastructure separation should look like.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-12-2008, 09:47 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

Farkas Levente <lfarkas <at> lfarkas.org> writes:
> is there any place from where i can download the current mingw devel rpms?

There are 3rd party RPMs at: http://mingw-cross.sourceforge.net/

But be warned that they do some bad things like installing to /usr/local (at
least they did last I checked), which the packages being worked on for official
Fedora inclusion won't do.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-13-2008, 10:33 AM
"Yaakov Nemoy"
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
>> Do you have a list of the current technical issues you're coping with?
>> Maybe I can help.
>
> Yes, I did ... and in fact I was looking for it earlier today, but
> couldn't find it. So let's make a list again:
>
> (1) At the moment rpm runs programs like 'strip' on the Windows
> libraries, which actually corrupts them. To avoid that we have hacked
> the __os_install_post RPM variable so it basically doesn't do
> anything.
>
> However a better solution would be to run the correct strip binary
> depending on the type of binary/library (ie. ordinary strip or
> i686-pc-mingw32-strip as appropriate).
>
> If you have a look at this file (not written by me) and search down
> for __os_install_post, you'll see one working but rather ugly solution
> to this:
>
> http://www.annexia.org/tmp/i686-pc-mingw32-binutils.spec
>
> Is it possible to do any better? Perhaps by patching RPM itself?

Or just modifying a) the macro or b) the strip binary itself in the
environment you compile the packages in.

Namely
a) there is a macro __strip that you can try replacing with your own value.
b) rpm2git does some interesting things with patch, where it just has
rpmbuild run through a srpm, and then captures all the patch commands
with an alternate binary. In order to use it, you put a special
version of patch somewhere, put it at the top of the path, run
rpmbuild, and then revert your path. Seems like a 'support' rpm to
build mingw packages would be easier than patching the RPM source
itself.

-Yaakov

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-13-2008, 04:19 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default MinGW devel rpms

On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:33 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> >> Do you have a list of the current technical issues you're coping with?
> >> Maybe I can help.
> >
> > Yes, I did ... and in fact I was looking for it earlier today, but
> > couldn't find it. So let's make a list again:
> >
> > (1) At the moment rpm runs programs like 'strip' on the Windows
> > libraries, which actually corrupts them. To avoid that we have hacked
> > the __os_install_post RPM variable so it basically doesn't do
> > anything.
> >
> > However a better solution would be to run the correct strip binary
> > depending on the type of binary/library (ie. ordinary strip or
> > i686-pc-mingw32-strip as appropriate).
> >
> > If you have a look at this file (not written by me) and search down
> > for __os_install_post, you'll see one working but rather ugly solution
> > to this:
> >
> > http://www.annexia.org/tmp/i686-pc-mingw32-binutils.spec
> >
> > Is it possible to do any better? Perhaps by patching RPM itself?
>
> Or just modifying a) the macro or b) the strip binary itself in the
> environment you compile the packages in.
>
> Namely
> a) there is a macro __strip that you can try replacing with your own value.

This will not help - RPM presumes to have only one single strip to be
applied everywhere. Cross-toolchain packages contain different kinds of
binary formats, with each of which requiring different tools.

Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org