w32api-3.13

[Farkas Levente]

hi,
there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.

I'll see if I can do an update now.

Rich.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:45:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.
>
> I'll see if I can do an update now.

Build here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1000750

BTW, I'm only updating Rawhide, except in case of: (1) security, (2)
native Fedora package in an older branch is updated, or (3) someone
files a BZ requesting a branch be updated.  Probably in the case of
(3) they'll have to do the work too, and in no case do we want to get
unnecessarily out of step with the corresponding native branch.

Rich.

[Farkas Levente]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:45:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > > there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.
> >
> > I'll see if I can do an update now.
>
> Build here:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1000750
>
> BTW, I'm only updating Rawhide, except in case of: (1) security, (2)
> native Fedora package in an older branch is updated, or (3) someone

imho it's a special case since w32api has no native fedora packages.
> files a BZ requesting a branch be updated.  Probably in the case of
> (3) they'll have to do the work too, and in no case do we want to get
> unnecessarily out of step with the corresponding native branch.

does this means none of the filesystem, w32api, runtime will be updated
in any branch even if mingw update these packages?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:29:49PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:45:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > > > there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.
> > >
> > > I'll see if I can do an update now.
> >
> > Build here:
> >
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1000750
> >
> > BTW, I'm only updating Rawhide, except in case of: (1) security, (2)
> > native Fedora package in an older branch is updated, or (3) someone
>
> imho it's a special case since w32api has no native fedora packages.
> > files a BZ requesting a branch be updated.  Probably in the case of
> > (3) they'll have to do the work too, and in no case do we want to get
> > unnecessarily out of step with the corresponding native branch.
>
> does this means none of the filesystem,

mingw32-filesystem is a bit of a special case: So far we've tried to
keep the 3 versions identical.  Probably we should allow them to
diverge, but at the moment I'm not aware of any changes that need to
be made to this package, so it's moot.
> w32api, runtime will be updated
> in any branch even if mingw update these packages?

Rawhide is for rapid updates.  I'm not stopping you or anyone else
from backporting these updates to EL-5 and F-10, but IMHO it
multiplies the work more than three-fold, with no particular gain.

But for packages which have corresponding Fedora native versions, we
really need to keep them in step.  Hopefully we can get Dan's
comparison tools working soon to automate this, and get notifications
on this list.

Rich.

[Farkas Levente]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:29:49PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:45:08PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > > > > there is a newer 3.13 w32api released, it'd be useful to update.
> > > >
> > > > I'll see if I can do an update now.
> > >
> > > Build here:
> > >
> > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1000750
> > >
> > > BTW, I'm only updating Rawhide, except in case of: (1) security, (2)
> > > native Fedora package in an older branch is updated, or (3) someone
> >
> > imho it's a special case since w32api has no native fedora packages.
> > > files a BZ requesting a branch be updated.  Probably in the case of
> > > (3) they'll have to do the work too, and in no case do we want to get
> > > unnecessarily out of step with the corresponding native branch.
> >
> > does this means none of the filesystem,
>
> mingw32-filesystem is a bit of a special case: So far we've tried to
> keep the 3 versions identical.  Probably we should allow them to
> diverge, but at the moment I'm not aware of any changes that need to
> be made to this package, so it's moot.
> > w32api, runtime will be updated
> > in any branch even if mingw update these packages?
>
> Rawhide is for rapid updates.  I'm not stopping you or anyone else
> from backporting these updates to EL-5 and F-10, but IMHO it
> multiplies the work more than three-fold, with no particular gain.

as now there is not any 'real' mingw packages added to fedora what can
be the reason not updating these two packages. imho these packages has a
new version every half year so they are not so rapid.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:58:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> as now there is not any 'real' mingw packages added to fedora what can
> be the reason not updating these two packages. imho these packages has a
> new version every half year so they are not so rapid.

If you want to backport them, please do so.

Rich.

[Farkas Levente]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:58:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > as now there is not any 'real' mingw packages added to fedora what can
> > be the reason not updating these two packages. imho these packages has a
> > new version every half year so they are not so rapid.
>
> If you want to backport them, please do so.
>
> Rich.

what do you call backport in this case? all the changes is the rewrite
of the version and the upload of the new sources?!
anyway imho it's be better to keep the three branch at the same level...
but of course i can do it for el-5...

--- devel/mingw32-w32api.spec	2008-12-15 22:51:55.000000000 +0100
+++ EL-5/mingw32-w32api.spec	2008-11-26 18:19:29.000000000 +0100
@@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
 %define __find_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides}

Name:           mingw32-w32api
-Version:	3.13
-Release:        1%{?dist}
+Version:	3.12
+Release:        8%{?dist}
 Summary:        Win32 header files and stubs

License:        Public Domain
@@ -58,10 +58,7 @@

%changelog
-* Mon Dec 15 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.13-1
-- New upstream version 3.13.
-
-* Tue Dec  9 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.12-8
+* Wed Nov 26 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.12-8
 - Force rebuild to get rid of the binary bootstrap package and replace
   with package built from source.

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:30:19AM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> what do you call backport in this case? all the changes is the rewrite
> of the version and the upload of the new sources?!

That was just a version number change, but doing those two packages in
one branch (Rawhide) took the best part of an hour if you include the
time waiting around for downloads, uploads, local builds, checking in
and building.  It doesn't get any easier to do multiple branches --
and in fact with Bodhi it's even harder.  That was just for a version
number change!  It gets harder when there are build problems ...

I'm really keen for others to make the changes to the other branches.

Rich.

[Conrad Meyer]

On Monday 15 December 2008 03:30:19 pm Farkas Levente wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:58:40PM +0100, Farkas Levente wrote:
> > > as now there is not any 'real' mingw packages added to fedora what can
> > > be the reason not updating these two packages. imho these packages has a
> > > new version every half year so they are not so rapid.
> >
> > If you want to backport them, please do so.
> >
> > Rich.
>
> what do you call backport in this case? all the changes is the rewrite
> of the version and the upload of the new sources?!
> anyway imho it's be better to keep the three branch at the same level...
> but of course i can do it for el-5...
>
> --- devel/mingw32-w32api.spec	2008-12-15 22:51:55.000000000 +0100
> +++ EL-5/mingw32-w32api.spec	2008-11-26 18:19:29.000000000 +0100
> @@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
>  %define __find_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides}
>
> Name:           mingw32-w32api
> -Version:	3.13
> -Release:        1%{?dist}
> +Version:	3.12
> +Release:        8%{?dist}
>  Summary:        Win32 header files and stubs
>
> License:        Public Domain
> @@ -58,10 +58,7 @@
>
> %changelog
> -* Mon Dec 15 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.13-1
> -- New upstream version 3.13.
>
> -* Tue Dec  9 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.12-8
> +* Wed Nov 26 2008 Richard W.M. Jones  - 3.12-8
> Force rebuild to get rid of the binary bootstrap package and replace
> with package built from source.

You don't even have to upload new sources, the lookaside cache is per project, 
not per project and dist.

Regards,