<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:orion@cora.nwra.com" target="_blank">orion@cora.nwra.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:<br>
> On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:<br>
>> On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:<br>
>>> Dear Fedora developers,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making<br>
>>> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build<br>
>>> dependencies, etc.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> Would it be technically feasible to have a different buildroot for arch<br>
>> and noarch packages?<br>
> What would this be useful for?<br>
<br>
</span>The thought would be that (almost all) noarch packages don't need gcc, so the<br>
noarch buildroot could exclude gcc without impacting existing packages.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was going to say the same about noarch/arched packages and gcc assumption, also that I don't see any "simplification" in hardcoding the default compiler everywhere, specially as It probably depends
on the build target . I remember other distros were using
cross-compiler in buildroot and that was working pretty fine if the
default "compiler" wasn't needlessly assumed.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br>Another
case about the default buildroot is compiler version, one could rely on
a newer gcc (such as with a gcc5 package) and rebuild any
packages with this new buildroot environment without tweaking any
sources packages.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><br></div></div><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>-<br><br></div>Nicolas (kwizart)<br></div></div>
</div></div>