May 2009 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 490704] Review Request: mingw32-liboil - MinGW Windows liboil 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=490704 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #15 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com> 2009-05-14 16:49:35 EDT --- This is built now, so closing. -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 491758] Review Request: mingw32-opensc - MingGW Windows OpenSC 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=491758 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-05-12 22:27:53 EDT --- mingw32-opensc-0.11.8-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-opensc-0.11.8-1.fc10 -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 491758] Review Request: mingw32-opensc - MingGW Windows OpenSC 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=491758 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-05-12 22:27:44 EDT --- mingw32-opensc-0.11.8-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-opensc-0.11.8-1.fc11 -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 491317] Review Request: mingw32-gstreamer - MinGW Windows gstreamer 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=491317 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #12 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2009-05-09 14:15:17 EDT --- Okay, I'll continue the review. - The .spec file contains a lot of commented out parts. You might want to remove these for readability - The %{_mingw32_configure} call contains --with-package-name='Fedora Core gstreamer package'. Fedora Core isn't used anymore these days, so you might want to use just plain 'Fedora' here (without the 'Core'). - When performing make, you've added -D__MSVCRT_VERSION__=0x0601 to the CFLAGS. You might want to put a reference to the discussion about this in there as a comment: http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org/msg00741... - Isn't it possible to set the -D__MSVCRT_VERSION__=0x0601 in the %configure phase? This is recommended to minimize the chance of side-effects - At line 116 there's the comment '# Install doc temporarily in order to be included later by rpm'. This is confusing as the next line contains a regular 'make install' command - The libtool .la files don't need to be removed as they're required to compile applications/other libraries with want to link against gstreamer - You might want to put the .a files (static libraries) in a seperate -static subpackage - Why is an empty cache directory created in the %install phase? It isn't being used elsewhere in the .spec file - Why are the binaries split across two packages? - Why is the %defattr line at line 162 commented out ? - The include files and pkgconfig files are placed in the 'tools' subpackage, while they should be in the main 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Fwd: OpenSuSE 11.1 libssh2 package

by Richard W.M. Jones

----- Forwarded message from Guenter Knauf <...> ----- Hi, we got meanwhile libssh2 1.1 and this version has major speed improvements over previous versions; is it possible that you both update the libssh2 packagaes? OpenSuSE package is currently libssh2-1-0.19.0+20080814-2.11 OpenSuSE mingw32 package us currently mingw32-libssh2-1.0-1.4 thanks, Guenter. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 492501] Review Request: mingw32-libtiff - MinGW Windows port of the LibTIFF 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=492501 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2009-05-09 08:29:13 EDT --- Let's take this package for review. - The %define LIBVER can be dropped as it isn't being used elsewhere in the .spec file - The 'make check' part doesn't belong in the %build phase, but in a seperate %check phase. - Does 'LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH make check' even work? The LD_LIBRARY_PATH variable is only necessary for native libraries, so it doesn't have any effect on MinGW packages. (I haven't build and tested the package myself yet) - The libtool .la files are required for proper operation on MinGW, so these don't need to be removed - The multilib stuff isn't required as we only support 32bit environments. It can all be dropped - Why does the defattr line contain the value '0755' ? Normally it should be %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

mingw64 status?

by Michael Cronenworth

Will GTK2 and friends be making it into mingw64 packages? I'm interested in making some Win64 GTK programs. What about a "w64api" for mingw64? The DDK includes are no where to be found. I'm not able to make libusb for Win64 as it stands.

14 years, 11 months

3
6
0 / 0

[Bug 498508] New: mingw32-zlib does not build mingw32-minizip

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. Summary: mingw32-zlib does not build mingw32-minizip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498508 Summary: mingw32-zlib does not build mingw32-minizip Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: mingw32-zlib AssignedTo: rjones(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org, berrange(a)redhat.com, rjones(a)redhat.com, fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora The native zlib SRPM also builds the minizip library and the minizip and minizip-devel RPM's. The mingw32 version - mingw32-zlib - does neither build the minizip DLL nor mingw32-minizip RPM's. On http://sailer.fedorapeople.org, I've put a version of the mingw32-zlib SRPM that uses the same (autotools) buildsystem as the native package uses. It build both the zlib and the minizip RPMs. The downside of this package, however, is that the binary name of the zlib DLL changes from zlib1.dll to libz-1.dll. Implib names stay the same. I have no idea how to change the DLL name with libtool. So the downside of this package is that while it is API compatible, it is not ABI compatible. -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 491618] New: Review Request: mingw32-libsqlite3x - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for the sqlite database 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. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libsqlite3x - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for the sqlite database library Alias: mingw32-libsqlite3x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491618 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libsqlite3x - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for the sqlite database library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libsqlite3x.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libsqlite3x-20071018-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for the sqlite database library. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
14
0 / 0

[Bug 492133] New: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 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. Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 library Alias: mingw-libglade2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492133 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libglade2 - MinGW Windows Libglade2 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libglade2.spec SRPM URL: http://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw32-libglade2-2.6.3-5.fc11.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Libglade2 library This is Richard M.W. Jones unmodified spec file. Approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW -- 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.

14 years, 11 months

1
14
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw May 2009