[Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems?
Richard W.M. Jones
rjones at redhat.com
Sun Jul 13 16:02:07 UTC 2008
I would just like to direct people on the fedora-advisory-board list
to my previous reply here, which should address all of Jeff's
questions:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-July/msg00043.html
except for this one:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:53:18PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Is this really an appropriate use of our Project mirroring and
> repository resources? How much bigger would the repository end up
> being if all our existing libraries were repackaged as windows DLLs?
Leaving aside the fact that it's completely unrealistic to think
anyone could recompile every Fedora library, and no one is proposing
to do this anyway (see my answer above), I do have some figures on how
big the MinGW RPMs are on my (32 bit) machine compared to the ordinary
Fedora RPMs [0]:
4.1M mingw-libxml2-2.6.32-1.fc10.i386.rpm
847K libxml2-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm
1.4M libxml2-devel-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm
108K mingw-zlib-1.2.3-1.fc10.i386.rpm
75K zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm
43K zlib-devel-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm
3.3M mingw-gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm
390K gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm
2.5M gnutls-devel-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm
128K gnutls-utils-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm [1]
If we carry out a plan of building from the same SRPM then there
shouldn't be any significant increase there. There are no debuginfo
packages for MinGW.
Rich.
[0] Note that there is no foo / foo-devel split in the mingw packages.
[1] Windows utilities (certtool.exe etc) are included in the
mingw-gnutls package at present.
--
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
More information about the Fedora-packaging
mailing list