2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski <or...@cora.nwra.com>: > On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >>> Dear Fedora developers, > >>> > >>> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making > >>> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build > >>> dependencies, etc. > >>> > >> > >> Would it be technically feasible to have a different buildroot for arch > >> and noarch packages? > > What would this be useful for? > > The thought would be that (almost all) noarch packages don't need gcc, so > the > noarch buildroot could exclude gcc without impacting existing packages.
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. 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. -- - Nicolas (kwizart)
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
