Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> +BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 10 >> ihmo here again would be better to one common cross-filesystem which >> contains all macros, script, dirs etc. why we create 3 such packages? i >> think now and in a few months as many things get clear (as daniel >> suggested) would be better to create test packages based on a new >> 'feature for f12 cross-compiler'. > > There's not a lot of commonality. The filesystem layouts are quite > different between the three cross-compilers.
most macros are very similar and keep them in one common packages can help to stay them in sync. >>> +BuildRequires: mingw64-gcc >>> +BuildRequires: mingw64-binutils >> and again if we create cross-xxx packages then we can create >> meta-packages like cross-gcc which requires all gcc and these BR can be >> 3 times shorter. > > On the other hand, this is an actively bad idea. We are currently > using 3 different versions of GCC from 3 different upstream projects. > Binutils doesn't even exist on Darwin. Go and have a look at this > diagram again: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mingw/2009-February/000465.html ok may be not for gcc but imho it's much cleaner to: BuildRequires: cross-zlib than BuildRequires: mingw32-zlib BuildRequires: mingw64-zlib BuildRequires: darwin-zlib -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
