mingw November 2010

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
118 discussions

[Bug 641429] Review Request: mingw32-dbus - MinGW Windows port of DBus
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641429 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-11-03 18:28:06 EDT --- $ rpmlint mingw32-dbus.spec mingw32-dbus.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dbus-1.4.1.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings $ rpmlint mingw32-dbus-1.4.1-0.1.20101008git.fc14.src.rpm mingw32-dbus.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemwide -> system wide, system-wide, systemize mingw32-dbus.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dbus-1.4.1.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-dbus-1.4.1-0.1.20101008git.fc14.noarch.rpm mingw32-dbus-static-1.4.1-0.1.20101008git.fc14.noarch.rpm mingw32-dbus.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemwide -> system wide, system-wide, systemize mingw32-dbus-static.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemwide -> system wide, system-wide, systemize mingw32-dbus-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libdbus-1.a mingw32-dbus-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. The invalid-url warning is caused by the fact that you're using a git snapshot If using a snapshot, please add a comment explaining how the snapshot tarball was generated Please fix the spelling error The other rpmlint warnings can be ignored $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-dbus pkgconfig rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 62 mingw32-runtime mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libdbus-1-3.dll) mingw32(libexpat-1.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(ws2_32.dll) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-dbus mingw32(libdbus-1-3.dll) mingw32-dbus = 1.4.1-0.1.20101008git.fc14 + OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable * Overridden by MinGW guidelines [+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw [+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file [+] Requires are OK [+] BuildArch: noarch [+] No man pages or info files [+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific ones [+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [/] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as B ildRequires is optional. [/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [*] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please add a comment to the .spec which explains how the git snapshot tarball was generated and please fix the spelling error. Other than that the package is good to go. Please fix these two small issues before importing ================================================== The package mingw32-dbus is APPROVED by epienbro ================================================== -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 594575] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - MinGW Windows wxWidgets library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=594575 --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-11-03 16:09:54 EDT --- I note that there are two review tickets open for mings32-wxWidgets and indeed from the entries in the changelog it looks as if your package originated from the other submission. Normally I'd just close this ticket as a duplicate, but this one has the benefit of actually building. However, it produces, among other things, a 313MB .dll file, which I'm having trouble interpreting as anything other than something being broken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 522199] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522199 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |BuildFails --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-11-03 12:27:01 EDT --- This failed to build for me, though I don't know enough about mingw32 stuff to understand why. Here's a scratch build showing the failure: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2574423 Please clear the whiteboard if providing a package which builds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 587818] missing %{__strip} corrupts mingw binaries during rpmbuild
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587818 Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|12 |14 Flag|needinfo?(eblake(a)redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com> 2010-11-03 12:02:59 EDT --- Still present in F14, so bumping the version field: rpm-4.8.1-5.fc14.x86_64 redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-5.fc14.noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 587818] missing %{__strip} corrupts mingw binaries during rpmbuild
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587818 --- Comment #2 from Bug Zapper <fedora-triage-list(a)redhat.com> 2010-11-03 11:55:54 EDT --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 529756] Review Request: mingw32-libtheora - MinGW build of the Theora Video Compression Codec library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529756 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 529560] Review Request: mingw32-libvorbis - MinGW build of the libvorbis Vorbis General Audio Compression Codec library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529560 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 529569] Review Request: mingw32-speex - MinGW build of the Speex voice compression codec library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529569 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-11-02 10:17:35 EDT --- Blocking needsponsor as you do not appear to be a member of the packager group. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw November 2010