May 2011 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> mingw-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=673784 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(erik-fedora@vanpi | |enbroek.nl) | --- Comment #25 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-05-06 06:22:33 EDT --- Thank you both for reviewing this! Michael: Upstream for this package is the Fedora MinGW SIG. We don't have a separate VCS as we use the Fedora VCS for this The FSF rpmlint warnings have just been fixed I've kept the %clean and BuildRoot lines in so this package can also be built on EL-6. Perhaps those lines can be dropped for EL-6 packages as well, but I couldn't find any documentation about that yet. Kalev: This diverge in changelog history was caused by the fact that a long time ago (back in May 2010) I forked the mingw32 toolchain to add mingw-w64 support. Recently I tried to merge everything back together but apparently some things got lost. I've just re-added the wrapper scripts you mentioned. Wrapper scripts for the mingw-w64 part have also just been added. The original changelog has also been merged now The obsoletes and requires tags should be good now Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-filesystem/mingw-filesystem... SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-filesystem-70-1.fc15.src.rpm * Fri May 06 2011 Erik van Pienbroek <epienbro(a)fedoraproject.org> - 70-1 - Use the correct FSF-address in some scripts - Moved some Requires tags to the mingw-filesystem-scripts subpackage - Fixed the Obsoletes tags - Re-added the wrapper scripts mingw32-cmake, mingw32-make, mingw32-pkg-config and mingw32-qmake-qt4 - Added the wrapper scripts mingw32-cmake, mingw64-make, mingw64-pkg-config, i686-w64-mingw32-pkg-config, x86_64-w64-mingw32-pkg-config and mingw64-qmake-qt4 -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> mingw-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=673784 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev(a)smartlink.ee --- Comment #24 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-05-06 05:10:41 EDT --- Could you please rebase the rpm changelog on top of the current mingw32-filesystem (and keep rebasing it when there are new changes to mingw32-filesystem)? It's a bit hard to see right now what changes were accidental and what was intended. When importing the rename into Fedora, I think the changes should apply cleanly on the existing package, without rewriting much of the (Fedora package's) history. Comparing the package to the existing mingw32-filesystem, the following symlinks are no longer there. Is it intentional? /usr/bin/mingw32-cmake /usr/bin/mingw32-make /usr/bin/mingw32-pkg-config /usr/bin/mingw32-qmake-qt4 > Obsoletes: cross-filesystem <= 67-1 <= comparision doesn't work as intended here, it's better to use 'Obsoletes: cross-filesystem < 67-2' to take into account the .fcXX prefixes in release. > Requires: setup > Requires: rpm > Requires: rpmlint >= 0.85-2 These requires should surely be in the -scripts subpackage. -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> mingw-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=673784 Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> mingw-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=673784 Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mike(a)cchtml.com Flag| |needinfo?(erik-fedora@vanpi | |enbroek.nl) --- Comment #23 from Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> 2011-05-05 20:32:48 EDT --- My first review. Go easy on me! + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw-filesystem mingw-filesystem-scripts mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided cross-filesystem mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided cross-filesystem-scripts mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw-filesystem-scripts-69/COPYING mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw32-configure /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw32-configure mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw64-configure /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw64-configure 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. I don't think the FSF address is an issue, but you may want to correct it. The rest of the messages look harmless. + rpmlint output + The package is named according to the latest Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the package base name + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible ? Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. They are all plain-text scripts, but where is upstream? + The package builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3053279 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 If you want to, you can also remove the %clean section and the BuildRoot lines which are also no longer required in current Fedora releases, before importing the package to git. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean I'll approve it once I know where the upstream is. I feel a comment should be put where a VC system containing the scripts is. If there is no VC system then I guess it passes. I don't see a guideline that prohibits script-only packages. -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701112] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=701112 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701112] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=701112 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2011-05-05 17:53:56 EDT --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-wxWidgets Short Description: MinGW port of the wxWidgets GUI library Owners: sailer kalev Branches: f14 f15 -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701112] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=701112 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-05-05 17:48:31 EDT --- Looks good. APPROVED -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701112] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=701112 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2011-05-05 17:36:35 EDT --- Ok, thanks for the review! I've added the license files and moved _mingw32_debug_package to the more logical place you suggested. New files (now on another location as fedorapeople is down): http://www.baycom.org/~tom/fedora/mingw32-wxWidgets-2.8.12-2.fc14.src.rpm http://www.baycom.org/~tom/fedora/mingw32-wxWidgets.spec -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

Re: mingw32->mingw transition?

by Erik van Pienbroek

Thomas Sailer schreef op do 05-05-2011 om 17:59 [+0200]: > Hi Erik, > > the new mingw guidelines seem to create a bit of a migration issue; > since the source package name changes, there probably needs to be new > repositories created for all mingw32 packages for f16+ > > Is there going to be a mass migration of some sort? or do we need to > re-review all packages? > > And how am I going to request a new package repository with different > names for <=f15 and >=f16? > > The problem right now is that the new guidelines seem to confuse Jason > Tibbitts to the point where he refuses SCM requests... > > Tom > Hi Thomas, I just replied to the review ticket about the current situation. With regard to your question about migration: there isn't any clear plan yet to mass-rename all mingw32-* packages. According to the regular proces we've got to file rename requests for all mingw32-* packages and have them re-reviewed. But as we're close to 100 different mingw32-* packages this isn't really a feasible method. Perhaps we can ask FeSCO to give us an exception so we can mass-rename all mingw32-* packages without having to get everything through the review proces again. Kind regards, Erik van Pienbroek

13 years

2
1
0 / 0

[Bug 701112] Review Request: mingw32-wxWidgets - C++ cross-platform GUI library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=701112 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-05-05 15:39:22 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-wxWidgets-2.8.12-1.fc14.src.rpm 2011-05-05 + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint output + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the package base name + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package ! The package doesn't contain the license file + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 2fa39da14bc06ea86fe902579fedc5b1 wxWidgets-2.8.12.tar.gz 2fa39da14bc06ea86fe902579fedc5b1 Download/wxWidgets-2.8.12.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package + Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Issues: ! The binary rpm doesn't contain any license files, although they are shipped in the upstream tarball. Can you also move the _mingw32_debug_package macro so it'd be right before the %prep section? This is far from a blocker, but the way it currently is breaks 'spectool -g'. -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw May 2011