mingw August 2011

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
76 discussions

[Bug 724906] CVE-2011-0216 libxml, libxml2, mingw32-libxml2: Off-by-one error leading to heap-based buffer overflow and application crash via a crafted web site
by Red Hat Bugzilla 23 Aug '11

23 Aug '11

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=724906 --- Comment #18 from Kai Tietz <ktietz(a)redhat.com> 2011-08-23 06:28:32 EDT --- As far as I understood is this CVE not affecting our libxml2 version. Are any more details for this? Or is this CVE something to close? Regards, Kai -- 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

Problems updating boost SPEC file
by Jay Higley 22 Aug '11

22 Aug '11

I am trying to update the Boost SPEC file to actually compile both the 32bit and 64bit versions, but I am seeing an error when rebuilding. It appears that the mingw_cmake macro is not expanding the way that I expect it to when I pass in arguments. If my %build section looks like this, then it works. %build %mingw_cmake -DBUILD_TESTS=NONE %mingw_make %{?_smp_mflags} When it looks like this, I get an error. %build %mingw_cmake -DBUILD_TESTS=NONE %mingw_make %{?_smp_mflags} The error is mingw_cmake: invalid option -- 'D' error: Unknown option ? in mingw_cmake() Can anyone offer up some pointers on what I should look at to try and debug this? -Jay

1 0

Broken dependencies in EPEL - 2011-08-21
by Fedora Koji Build System 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: ====================================================================== The results in this summary consider Test Updates! ====================================================================== package: mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch from fedora-epel-6-ppc64 unresolved deps: mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32-filesystem >= 0:63 mingw32-runtime

1 0

[Bug 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |mingw-gtksourceview3-3.1.4- | |2.fc16 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-20 11:39:27 --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> 2011-08-20 11:39:27 EDT --- Package imported and built; closing the ticket. -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2011-08-20 11:18:38 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> 2011-08-20 06:13:01 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-gtksourceview3 Short Description: MinGW Windows library for viewing source files Owners: kalev nacho Branches: f16 InitialCC: -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> 2011-08-20 06:09:27 EDT --- Thanks for the review, nacho! -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho) <icq(a)gnome.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |icq(a)gnome.org Flag| |fedora-review+ -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 --- Comment #3 from Ignacio Casal Quinteiro (nacho) <icq(a)gnome.org> 2011-08-20 06:00:41 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK 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.[4] OK: the COPYING MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK, as checked in the previous comments. 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] OK: just mingw needed 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 BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] OK MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] OK: not needed MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] OK 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] OK: not included as included in the normal package MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] OK: just COPYING MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] OK: special case for mingw MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] OK 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. [19] OK: special case for mingw MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [21] OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] OK: special case for mingw 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] OK: it doesn't MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] OK -- 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 730781] Review Request: mingw-gtksourceview3 - MinGW Windows library for viewing source files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Aug '11

20 Aug '11

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=730781 --- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> 2011-08-20 05:45:18 EDT --- I don't think we can (yet) do any introspection, for one there's still no cross-compiled gobject-introspection. Updated the spec file as discussed on IRC. +* Sat Aug 20 2011 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> - 3.1.4-2 +- Explicitly disable introspection (#730781) +- Added comments about native buildrequires Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-gtksourceview3.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-gtksourceview3-3.1.4-2.fc16.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3288791 -- 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 August 2011