mingw February 2010

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
43 discussions

Broken dependencies: mingw32-gtkmm24
by Fedora Koji Build System 17 Feb '10

17 Feb '10

mingw32-gtkmm24 has broken dependencies in the development tree: On x86_64: mingw32-gtkmm24-2.19.2-1.fc13.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:56 On i386: mingw32-gtkmm24-2.19.2-1.fc13.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:56 Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

Broken dependencies: mingw32-filesystem
by Fedora Koji Build System 17 Feb '10

17 Feb '10

mingw32-filesystem has broken dependencies in the development tree: On x86_64: mingw32-filesystem-56-1.fc12.noarch requires rpmlint >= 0:0.85-2 On i386: mingw32-filesystem-56-1.fc12.noarch requires rpmlint >= 0:0.85-2 Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

Broken dependencies: mingw32-zlib
by Fedora Koji Build System 17 Feb '10

17 Feb '10

mingw32-zlib has broken dependencies in the development tree: On x86_64: mingw32-zlib-static-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-zlib = 0:1.2.3-19.fc12 mingw32-zlib-static-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 On i386: mingw32-zlib-static-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-zlib = 0:1.2.3-19.fc12 mingw32-zlib-static-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 On x86_64: mingw32-minizip-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-zlib = 0:1.2.3-19.fc12 mingw32-minizip-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 On i386: mingw32-minizip-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-zlib = 0:1.2.3-19.fc12 mingw32-minizip-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 On x86_64: mingw32-zlib-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 On i386: mingw32-zlib-1.2.3-19.fc12.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:52 Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

Broken dependencies: mingw32-libp11
by Fedora Koji Build System 17 Feb '10

17 Feb '10

mingw32-libp11 has broken dependencies in the development tree: On x86_64: mingw32-libp11-0.2.7-2.fc13.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:56 On i386: mingw32-libp11-0.2.7-2.fc13.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:56 Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

[Bug 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '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=529548 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev(a)smartlink.ee --- Comment #18 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2010-02-04 07:55:40 EST --- I have a few late comments. The -debuginfo subpackage is empty. This is caused by a missing define: %define __debug_install_post %{_mingw32_debug_install_post} You have this: # Automatically create a debuginfo package %{_mingw32_debug_package} Instead of using %{_mingw32_debug_package}, it's better to use %{?_mingw32_debug_package} (notice the question mark) to work around a problem with macros showing up unexpanded in description in Koji. See [1] for an explanation of this issue. Can you do a new Koji scratch build to be sure that debuginfo issues are fixed? Now that the binaries are stripped automatically, you can kill those two lines: # Uncomment and unescape to strip the debug symbols from the resulting artifacts #%%{_mingw32_strip} --strip-unneeded %%{buildroot}%%{_mingw32_bindir}/libogg-0.dll Requires: pkgconfig is unneccessary in Fedora (but needed if you plan to build for EPEL). RPM in current Fedora releases is capable of extracting pkgconfig deps automatically. See [2] for updated guidlines. You don't neccessarily have to change anything here, just pointing it out. [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/130357.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Pkgconfig_Files -- 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 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Feb '10

04 Feb '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=529548 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> 2010-02-04 07:20:42 EST --- Great! I don't see other issues with Stefan's srpm, so this package is APPROVED. Stefan, will you continue with packaging the rest of the Xiph's stack? If not, then, I believe, Josh could step in. -- 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

c++ program produces bad results
by Gene Smith 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '10

I have a one-file c++ program that builds and runs fine with g++ on linux (f12). It also builds fine when built with i686-pc-mingw32-g++ on f12. However, when run under window or wine on linux it produces zeros for all double outputs and other incorrect integer results. There are no errors indicated other than the output is obviously wrong. Is there a trick to getting math intensive c++ programs to work when running mingw32 programs? -gene

2 2

[Bug 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '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=529548 --- Comment #16 from Stefan Riemens <fgfs.stefan(a)gmail.com> 2010-02-02 09:08:06 EST --- Changelog entry: (forgot to add it, sorry) * Tue Feb 2 2010 Stefan Riemens <fgfs.stefan(a)gmail.com> - 1.1.4-4 - Fix %%defattr line - Automatically create a debuginfo package -- 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 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '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=529548 Stefan Riemens <fgfs.stefan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mihai(a)limbasan.ro | |) | --- Comment #15 from Stefan Riemens <fgfs.stefan(a)gmail.com> 2010-02-02 09:07:16 EST --- Alright, please find an updated package here: http://www.riemens.org/fs/temp/mingw32-libogg.spec http://www.riemens.org/fs/temp/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-4.fc12.src.rpm rpmlint output: rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-4.fc12.src.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-4.fc12.noarch.rpm /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libogg-debuginfo-1.1.4-4.fc12.noarch.rpm mingw32-libogg-debuginfo.noarch: E: empty-debuginfo-package 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1958859 Thanks, Stefan PS, I'm already sponsored by Peter. -- 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 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Feb '10

02 Feb '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=529548 --- Comment #14 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-02 08:23:23 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) > Alternatively, I'd be happy to maintain this package as well. I don't have a > clue how that works though. Should I just post a cvs admin request, with my > name as the maintainer? Or should I open a new review request? Well the review isn't finished yet. Peter had some questions in comment 8 which require you to post a fixed package, and for Peter (once he is happy with it) to approve it. I assume you have a FAS account and are a packager? If not you'll also need sponsorship. This is all explained in the link I posted in comment 12. -- 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 February 2010