BZ followups for mingw32-jasper and mingw32-openssl in epel 5

[Jason Taylor]

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the background! That definitely connects some dots for me.
Just let me know how I can help with this once a decision is made what
to do with the EL 5 packages.

Regards,

JT

On Sun, 2014-08-03 at 14:47 +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> The mingw packages in epel5 aren't really maintained. Back in 2008 they
> were initially pushed (bootstrapped) to epel5 by Richard W.M. Jones and
> afterwards Levente Farkas did some maintenance work on it. Afaik there
> were no other people interested in maintaining mingw in epel5 at that
> time.
> 
> With RHEL6 Red Hat decided to provide and maintain various mingw
> packages in their additional upstream repositories so various mingw
> packages weren't allowed in epel6 any more. Some community-supported
> mingw packages did end up in epel6 (by accident) but caused noise
> because of missing ppc64 support on Red Hat's end. A public call was
> done in 2011 to find out if there were volunteers around to fix the
> epel6 issues but no one replied:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2011-October/004182.html
> If I remember correctly these packages were pulled from epel6 to avoid
> the noise.
> 
> In the Fedora MinGW world a lot changed in 2012. We decided to switch
> from the old mingw.org toolchain to the much better maintained mingw-w64
> toolchain. This also gave as the possibility for both Windows x86 and
> x64 support (while the old mingw.org toolchain only provided x86
> support). Due to this we had to introduce a new set of packaging
> guidelines and all mingw packages had to be ported.
> 
> The mingw packages in epel5 are based on the old mingw.org toolchain and
> the old Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines. Therefore we can't just merge
> back fixes from Fedora to epel5.
> 
> With epel7 we are in a different situation now. As Red Hat doesn't
> provide mingw support any more in RHEL7 we were able to introduce the
> Fedora mingw packages to epel7 without any issues. Backporting fixes is
> now also easier as the packaging guidelines are the same and we don't
> plan on doing any major core toolchain changes any time soon.
> 
> We have to make a decision about what to do with the mingw packages in
> epel5. They are horrible outdated by now and have security issues. I'm
> tempted to have all mingw packages removed from epel5, but this could
> break users which still use them (although I hardly believe there are
> any epel5 mingw users left).
> 
> How do the other Fedora mingw folks on this list think about this
> situation
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Erik
> 
> Jason Taylor schreef op vr 01-08-2014 om 17:49 [+0000]:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > I was reviewing a couple BZs[0][1] and was wondering how these should be
> > handled? It looks like packages are only currently being pushed to
> > fedora repos and epel 7. TIA..
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > JT
> > 
> > 
> > [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765663
> > 
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815672
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mingw mailing list
> > mingw at lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mingw mailing list
> mingw at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw


-- 
Jason Taylor | Secure-24 | 26955 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 200 |
Southfield | MI | 48033 | USA |www.Secure-24.com | W (248) 784-1021 ext.
617 | C (586) 298-2072 | jason.taylor at secure-24.com

This communication and any attached files may contain information that
is confidential or privileged.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure
or distribution is prohibited.  If this communication has been received
in error, please notify me and delete or destroy it immediately.