[Fedora-packaging] Re: Namespace for cross-compilation tools?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Sat Jun 17 20:31:32 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 10:20 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:

> RC> The next nitpicking I expect to happen is GCC using
> RC> $prefix/$target_alias/, which tangles a defect/leak of the FHS.
> Well, yes, if I were to be foolish enough to continue to attempt to
> review your packages, I would come back here with more questions if I
> had them.  Which is what I understand that I'm supposed to do.
> So, Ralf, if you don't think anyone should question your packaging
> decisions,
Questioning decison is one side of the medal, cluelessness is another

The choice of package names is my decision, true, and is how we (rtems)
ship them for many years.

But the rest is not my decisions. It's how GCC cross-compilers work,
ever since they exist. Cross-compilers are a bit more complex than
native tools and impose demands the FHS and the FE guidelines don't

>  I really don't know what to tell you.  Perhaps, "tough" is
> appropriate.
"Though" is what I had expected and what I am willing to cope with,
but ... cluelessness is hard to bare.

>   If I see anything that's out of line with the current
> guidelines, anything that sets new precedent, any fancy specfile trick
> or rpm bug workaround that isn't commented, or even anything I don't
> understand (which I'll tell you now is quite a bit) then I'm going to
> question it.
> And that's a good thing.  Why?  Because that's how the process is
> supposed to work.  Short of some committee somewhere passing a "Ralf's
> packages go right on through" rule,
Absolutely not.

>  all of your packages are going to
> have to go through the review process.
I am asking reviewers to *THINK*.

Unfortunately, I feel some people prefer to take the Guidelines as God
sent laws they try to stick to word by word. The Guidelines, the FHS and
the LSB have been written by humans with limited horizons/knowledge, are
full of inconsistencies and defects, which ought to be found and closed.

> RC> You probably will be able to relate why I feel really pissed about
> RC> this.
> As far as I can see, the only thing you might have cause for being
> angry about is the fact that your packages sat there for six months.
The fact you are missing: These package's history. 

> So here we are, and in all honesty I must say I'm a bit disappointed
> at the way things are working out.
Well, ... contribution to Fedora is disappointing and takes a very long
breath ...


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list