gtk2 on epel won't be easy

Farkas Levente lfarkas at
Mon Nov 10 11:28:12 UTC 2008

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:55:30AM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:16:40AM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>>> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:19:09AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> Well it kind of depends on what you're wanting to use EPEL version of
>>> MingGW packages for. If you want them simply so that you can build and
>>> develop Win32 apps on a RHEL-5 based host machine, then keeping the same
>>> versions as Fedora makes sense because it minimizes overhead. If you want
>>> a RHEL-5/EPEL-5 based system for sake of long term support/stability of
>>> packages, then you'll want the MinGW packages to track RHEL-5 native
>>> versions so you take advantage of all the bugfixes/security patches etc
>>> being applied to RHEL-5 versions. 
>> yes you've got right. if there's someone who'd like to do the extra work
>> to maintain an enterprise version of these packages, than it'd be
>> better, but until we can't find such fedora's version still more than
>> nothing.
> The interesting thing is that if we did want the same versions available
> in both Fedora & EPEL, then in theory most of the RPMs should basically
> end up with identical built DLLs regardless of build host. Only the native
> compiled toolchain RPMs would truely be different.
> So if we want to address the usecase of letting people use RHEL/EPEL
> as a host for developing Win32 apps, then it might be sufficient to
> just provide the toolchain natively in EPEL (eg the mingw-filesystem, 
> mingw-binutils, mingw-gcc) and then pull in the existing RPMs of all
> the GTK like bits from Fedora with a magic YUM repo definition that
> restricts to only the mingw packages, eg
>    [mingw]
>    name=Mingw
>    baseurl=$arch/Everything/
>    enabled=1
>    exclude=*
>    includepkgs=mingw-*
> Though that's not quite perfect, because the mingw-* will still pull in
> the mingw-filesystem & gcc, & binutl bits if they happened to be newer.
> The yum include/exclude stuff is annoyingly not quite expressive enough.

that's why i prefer to put all of these pacakges to epel too (even if
they are the same as in fedora). there are many such packages eg
shorewall packages also identical with the fedora packages but still
better to include in epel.

  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

More information about the mingw mailing list