December 2010 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[mingw32-cairo/f14/master] Rebuild in order to have soft dependency on libintl

by Erik van Pienbroek

Summary of changes: 3a528bd... Rebuild in order to have soft dependency on libintl (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent

13 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 634614] Review Request: mingw32-srvany - Utility for creating a service from any MinGW Windows binary

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=634614 Andrew Beekhof <andrew(a)beekhof.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING --- Comment #13 from Andrew Beekhof <andrew(a)beekhof.net> 2010-12-15 06:44:28 EST --- Imported. Closing. Thankyou all. -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2010-12-14 17:45:56 -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-12-14 16:53:53 EST --- 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.

13 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2010-12-14 16:28:24 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-atkmm Short Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK library Owners: sailer epienbro Branches: f14 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.

13 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2010-12-14 16:27:05 EST --- Thanks Eric for the 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.

13 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-12-14 15:49:36 EST --- $ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm-2.22.0-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-atkmm-2.22.0-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ md5sum atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2 6faeedb26810fd954a856f05e03d4ea8 atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2 $ curl -s http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/atkmm/2.22/atkmm-2.22.0.tar.bz2 | md5sum 6faeedb26810fd954a856f05e03d4ea8 - $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-atkmm pkgconfig rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 63 mingw32-runtime mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libatk-1.0-0.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libglib-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libglibmm-2.4-1.dll) mingw32(libgobject-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libsigc-2.0-0.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-atkmm mingw32(libatkmm-1.6-1.dll) mingw32-atkmm = 2.22.0-1.fc15 Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2664174 + OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable * Overridden by MinGW guidelines [+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw [+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file [+] Requires are OK [+] BuildArch: noarch [+] No man pages or info files [+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific ones [+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [*] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [/] 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. [+] 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. [/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [/] 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. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [*] 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. [/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [/] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [*] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [*] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. =================================================== The package mingw32-atkmm is APPROVED by epienbro =================================================== -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2010-12-13 09:10:13 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > I have some nitpicking too. Thanks Kalev for your suggestions. I have updated the .spec and srpm files above according to your input. -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2010-12-13 09:09:18 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > 1. The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name} Huh? The package is called mingw32-atkmm, and the spec file mingw32-atkmm.spec. What's wrong with this? > 2.package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts The package does not contain binaries, other than dll's, and no scripts -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 661312] Review Request: mingw32-atkmm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the ATK 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=661312 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev(a)smartlink.ee --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2010-12-11 10:20:02 EST --- I have some nitpicking too. > %{_mingw32_libdir}/atkmm-1.6 > %{_mingw32_libdir}/atkmm-1.6/include > %{_mingw32_libdir}/atkmm-1.6/include/atkmmconfig.h These lines cause atkmm-1.6/include/atkmmconfig.h to appear three times and atkmm-1.6/include/ to appear twice in rpm file lists. If you specify a directory, rpm will recursively add all the subfolders and files in that directory. So listing the directory is enough: %{_mingw32_libdir}/atkmm-1.6/ > %descriptions > <snip> > %{_mingw32_debug_package} There have been issues with that macro getting included verbatim in package descriptions (Koji used to do that at one point, not sure if it's smarter now) and a workaround was to use ? to make sure it's expanded to nothing if the macro isn't defined: %{?_mingw32_debug_package} As all the files in this package used to be part of mingw32-gtkmm24, I think it's one of the very few cases where it's legitimate to use the Conflicts tag to make sure an old mingw32-gtkmm24 package isn't installed in the system. The files in the packages will conflict no matter what and the tag is just helping yum / rpm to see that without having to run the whole transaction check. Conflicts: mingw32-gtkmm24 < 2.21.1 -- 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, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw December 2010