supporting closed source operating systems?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I am only pointing out the precedents and differences in this case, I've
>> no idea yet if we are in danger of slipping down a slope.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone put forward any rationale by which to limit
> which libraries we distribute compiled against mingw.  The libraries
> so far suggested are specifically targeted so libvirt can be more
> easily developed. But there's no bright line painted as to why we
> should not allow all libraries to be rebuild and packaged if people
> desire them. If we let the relatively narrow set of libraries be
> rebuilt for the virtualization development needs as part of our
> repository, then we are opening the door for all libraries to be
> rebuild and packaged. I haven't seen a credible argument to limit
> mingw rebuilds to just what libvirt needs.  And quite frankly we
> shouldn't be setting limits on intended use.  If we allow any mingw
> built libraries into a repository we control.. then we should let all
> libraries be rebuilt with mingw. 

+1

Here's why:

I want Fedora to be a premier platform for developing software.  I want 
Fedora to attract developers of software to it.  Having mingw and a 
non-excluded range of OSS libraries furthers this goal by allowing 
developers who might have had to develop on a proprietary OS or with 
proprietary libraries to now build on Fedora with OSS libraries instead. 
  If these developers come to enjoy using Fedora, they will see more 
reason to enhance their experience on Fedora leading to more 
*contributors* to OSS software.

> We should not get into the business
> of trying to determine if one sort of development need for a library
> is more worthwhile than any other.  So if we let in what libvirt needs
> rebuilt in mingw, I'm pretty sure we are going to be pressed into
> allowing more libraries down the line, as people find more reasons to
> want to cross compile.  That's potentially a lot of additional space
> to be consumed in the main repository we ask mirrors to carry.  I'm
> not sure any of the mingw rebuilt items should be in the main
> repository.  I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to exist..but I
> am saying that its probably best to distribute them as their own
> collection outside of the main repository
> 
So here's a question:

We've already established that mingw doesn't fit the model of secondary 
arches but does it fit the model of EPEL and OLPC?  Can we have a 
repo/sub project that has its own branches of packages in CVS and builds 
  that target windows using mingw on Fedora?  Is that something we have 
enough interested parties to do?

Note: This may or may not scale very well when we think of expanding it 
to the realm of all cross-compilers.  But we probably aren't talking 
about potentially rebuilding every library in Fedora for the Lego 
MindStorm :-)

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080711/2c584fbe/attachment.sig>