Kevin Kofler wrote: >> But we did come up with a coherent plan for how to do this: >> >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mingw/2009-February/000464.html >> >> (see also the following messages). > > That sounds like a bad plan. The targets don't have any more in common than > they do with the native version. It makes sense to keep them in separate SRPMs > for the same reason it makes sense to keep them separate from the native > package. > > I don't see a problem with building mingw64-* from mingw32-* SRPMs or the > opposite, as that's the same target OS, just on different hardware platforms, > but building darwinx-* from the same SRPM as mingw* sounds very artificial to > me. They're likely to need different patches, dependencies etc.
why maintain 3 spec file for eg mingw32-zlib which are exactly identical on all platform or even a for cycle would be enough in the build section. it keeps simple clean and easier to maintain these even now too much packages. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
