June 2012 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Georgios Petasis

Hi all, I am running Fedora 17, and I am a bit confused about how can I use the cross-compiler tools to build executables for both Win32 & Win64. In the documents, I found this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Mingw-w64_cross_compiler , which states that Fedora 17 contains a new toolchain (Mingw-w64), which can build both 64 & 32 bit windows binaries. However, I can find only one package named after mingw-w64, and many named after mingw-32 & mingw-64. Are these the "old" toolchain? Is there a tutorial available on what to install and how to use the windows cross-compiler? I haven't managed to find anything recent. Thanks, George

11 years, 10 months

2
2
0 / 0

[Bug 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 --- Comment #4 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> --- (In reply to comment #3) > I have uploaded an updated spec and src.rpm file to > the same URLs as above if anyone else wants to take a look. Please bump the release and upload a new .src.rpm every time you make a change. This makes it easier to compare changes between versions Some additional review comments: - The CMake argument -DDISABLE_MULTITHREADING=ON and -D_CL_HAVE_WIN32_THREADS=0 are used in both the MINGW32_CMAKE_ARGS and the MINGW64_CMAKE_ARGS. To reduce duplication, you might want to move these to the %mingw_cmake call - The %clean section can be removed completely - Why are the files %{mingw32_libdir}/CLuceneConfig.cmake and %{mingw64_libdir}/CLuceneConfig.cmake dropped but not the files %{mingw32_libdir}/CLucene/CLuceneConfig.cmake and %{mingw64_libdir}/CLucene/CLuceneConfig.cmake. Shouldn't these two files be dropped as well? - The CMake arguments -DLUCENE_SYS_INCLUDES:PATH=%{mingw32_libdir} and -DLUCENE_SYS_INCLUDES:PATH=%{mingw64_libdir} shouldn't be needed for MinGW packages. It looks like the native Fedora CLucene package uses it for multilib support, but as Fedora MinGW doesn't use multilib this CMake argument shouldn't be needed for this package (In reply to comment #3) > rwmjones said on > Freenode he is overburdened with sponsorees already. I'm still looking for a > package sponsor for this package. One of the things you could do to attract potential sponsors is by helping out with reviewing other packages so you can demonstrate your understanding of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Here are some packages which might be interesting to help reviewing: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 - mingw-webkitgtk3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 - mingw-libarchive https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830387 - mingw-xz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 756776] Review Request: mingw32-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(berrange(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> --- Yes, I do. I was ignoring it until the Mingw32 -> Mingw64 migration in Fedora had settled down. I'll rewrite the specfile to follow new standards soon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 754437] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437 Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(berrange(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> --- Yes, I do. I was ignoring it until the Mingw32 -> Mingw64 migration in Fedora had settled down. I'll rewrite the specfile to follow new standards soon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 756776] Review Request: mingw32-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(berrange(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> --- Daniel: Do you still want to continue this package review? If so, please update the package so it will be based on the new MinGW Packaging Guidelines which are active as of Fedora 17: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 754437] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt-glib - libvirt glib integration for event

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754437 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(berrange(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> --- Daniel: Do you still want to continue this package review? If so, please update the package so it will be based on the new MinGW Packaging Guidelines which are active as of Fedora 17: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 479874] Review Request: mingw32-postgresql - postgresql development library's libpq

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479874 --- Comment #26 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> --- Itamar: do you still want us to continue with the review of this package? If so, please update the package so it is based on the new MinGW packaging guidelines (which are valid as of Fedora 17): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW If we don't hear anything from you in one week, I'm going to close this review request as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 819893] Review Request: mingw-gsl - MinGW Windows port of the GNU Scientific Library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819893 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-06-14 20:19:17 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-gsl-1.15-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 832007] Review Request: mingw-webkitgtk3 - MinGW Windows GTK+ Web content engine library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832007 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedorapr | |oject.org --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4161328 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 820729] Review Request: mingw-cximage - MinGW Windows CxImage manipulation library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820729 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-cximage-600-6.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-cximage-600-6.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 10 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw June 2012