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

Comments welcome. It's at a rather early stage at the moment.

There are some packages already if you'd like to take a look at them:

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

I have some misgivings (actually a lot of misgivings) about the use of
the /usr/i686-pc-mingw32 directory. See Ralf's reply to my email here
for some justification:

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-07/msg00105.html

Rich.

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

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

On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 16:58 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW
>
> Comments welcome. It's at a rather early stage at the moment.
>
> There are some packages already if you'd like to take a look at them:
>
> http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel

Just one remark based on hastly browsing your draft (I haven't read the
details yet):

The name mingw32 is related to 2 items:
- It's the historic name mingw had inherited from its past. Technically
it is required to make config.sub working when being fed with
mingw-related target triplets.

[try /usr/share/automake-1.10/config.sub i686-mingw rsp. i686-mingw32]

- There seem to be efforts related to implementing a 64bit mingw,
addressing 64bit Windows. (I don't know if they made progress, I only
saw patches related to an x86_64/64bit mingw being submitted to
different toolchain mailing-lists)

> I have some misgivings (actually a lot of misgivings) about the use of
> the /usr/i686-pc-mingw32 directory. See Ralf's reply to my email here
> for some justification:
>
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2008-07/msg00105.html
FWIW: Any cross-toolchain uses a similar directory.

Ralf


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

On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I have some misgivings (actually a lot of misgivings) about the use of
> the /usr/i686-pc-mingw32 directory.

Is this maybe something that needs to be taken to the FHS? We could be
setting into stone paths that maybe the next FHS will be placing
elsewhere.

Although my personal experience with the FHS showed me that it is very
difficult for an outsider to get anything discussed on the FHS
table. But I think Red Hat has someone in FHS, so if you ping him,
maybe there will be some reaction.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

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

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

I'd like to get this discussed at FPC next Tuesday. If anyone has any
technical points on the draft, can you let me know or edit the page.

(I've taken on board Ralf's point about mingw vs mingw32, although I'm
not sure what is the correct course of action at the moment ...)

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

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

On Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 12:44, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW
>
> I'd like to get this discussed at FPC next Tuesday. If anyone has any
> technical points on the draft, can you let me know or edit the page.
>
> (I've taken on board Ralf's point about mingw vs mingw32, although I'm
> not sure what is the correct course of action at the moment ...)

Looks mostly fine to me, although I don't like the length of
%{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
Could this be shortened to, say,
%{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/(sys)root/ ?
Are there going to be any files in %{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root
that you need the additional /mingw there?

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

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

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 21:50 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 12:44, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW
> >
> > I'd like to get this discussed at FPC next Tuesday. If anyone has any
> > technical points on the draft, can you let me know or edit the page.
> >
> > (I've taken on board Ralf's point about mingw vs mingw32, although I'm
> > not sure what is the correct course of action at the moment ...)
>
> Looks mostly fine to me, although I don't like the length of
> %{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
> Could this be shortened to, say,
> %{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/(sys)root/ ?
No.

.../sys-root/ is a foreign system's mapping onto the host system,
i.e. what is "/" under a native MinGW is /usr/i686-pc-ming32/sys-root/
under Fedora.

The "mingw" directory in ../sys-root/mingw is the standard directory
mingw uses natively to install in Windows and can't easily be remove.

> Are there going to be any files in %{_prefix}/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root
> that you need the additional /mingw there?
Hardly, but ... that's how things are supposed to be installed

You could network mount this mingw/-directory under Windows, should this
be possible

Ralf


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

On Friday, 11 July 2008 at 12:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
[...]

OK, thanks for the explanations. I don't have any more technical issues
right now.

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

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

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44:54AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW
>
> I'd like to get this discussed at FPC next Tuesday. If anyone has any
> technical points on the draft, can you let me know or edit the page.

Unfortunately I'm double-booked so I can't be at the meeting today.

Also these packages really need more work on them before presenting
them to FPC.

So I'll punt until +2 weeks.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v

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

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:44:54AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

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

I'd like to get this discussed at FPC next Tuesday. If anyone has any
technical points on the draft, can you let me know or edit the page.


Unfortunately I'm double-booked so I can't be at the meeting today.

Also these packages really need more work on them before presenting
them to FPC.

So I'll punt until +2 weeks.

We didn't have enough people for quorum this week. We'll hold a meeting
next week (July 22) to see if we can get quorum to pass things.


We did a little talking about cross compiling in general at our meeting.
Those who were there thought that having a separate source rpm
per-package-per-library makes more sense than subpackages (likely
different maintainers, having to maintain two sets of build instructions
in the spec, some cross-compilers require more invasive changes, and
simply not scaling in a general way when we have multiple cross-compilers.)


I'll note that neither Hans nor Ralf were present (both on the embedded
SIG) and their input could definitely change this but the present
thinking is that separate packages are the way to go.


-Toshio

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