On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:56 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:42:56PM +0100, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 11:15 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > If it's true cross support, then that should be a noarch package and the
> > file names it uses should not depend on %{_lib} that way.
> > Arguably it even belongs in %{_sharedir}, since it is fixed binary content
> > across all host machines.
>
> Those files are not architecture independent. They are somewhat similar
> to .o files. They contain the run time library for the language,
> compiled to native windows object files. If you want to compile your own
> program with them afterwards, they are linked together into a windows
> executable.
>
> You could argue that they should belong in a -devel package. But since
> this package is a compiler, we decided not to split it up into a devel
> package and a non-devel package. As that would be pointless, as one will
> not work without the other.
Sorry, I'm late on this one. Yes the files *are* arch independent
from the point of view of the host, so they should be noarch.
That's true.
Anyway you may find the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines to be
helpful, and it would be useful to make your package compatible with
the other ones, even if that deviates from upstream a little bit.
A little bit? Did you read my other mail on the subject:
"That's an idea, but then we would be incompatible with upstream. I can
try to patch the configuration files of fpc so that it searches for
these binaries in /usr/x86_64-pc-fpc/sys-root/fpc/lib. But I prefer the
'standard' location. Also because other packages based in fpc relay on
that.
And what I've read here is that this path is chosen because mingw needs
a root filesystem location. Fpc does not need that, so I think I keep
the default locations, if that's ok."
The thing is that fpc does not need a complete build-environment or
something like that. It's just the compiler, one executable. Nothing
more. And offcourse the compiled object-files, we are discussing the
locations of these files only.
I think I can patch the compiler and it's configuration files. But I
think it's not really doable to patch Lazarus, a freepacal-ide, to use
these paths.
We've also packaged some things, such as the OCaml
cross-compiler,
which sound very similar to the Pascal case you describe.
I can have a look.
Another thing, the MinGW packaging guidelines needs the packages to have
a 'MinGw' prefix, not suffix.
My example used a suffix, like 'fpc-win32'. Do you think I should use
'win32-fpc' instead? Again: this sounds logical when you have a complete
build-environment or something like that. But in this case I think
'fpc-win32' is more logical.
Joost