[Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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