September 2010 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-09-02 12:32:11 EDT --- You cannot review and approve your own 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.

13 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 12:25:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libvirt Short Description: MinGW Windows libvirt Owners: astokes rohara aphilipoff danpb Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: rohara astokes aphilipoff pmyers danpb -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 12:21:59 EDT --- Yea looks like they include it here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Libraries_.28DLLs.29 Approved Should I go ahead and do the cvs request as well? -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Beekhof <abeekhof(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 12:13:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Everything looks great except for the packaged libvirt.la, once this is removed > I'll approve the package. The mingw packaging standards might over-rule this. I notice: # find /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw -name "*.la" /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextlib.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libvirt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libxml2.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcharset.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libexpat.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libintl.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls-openssl.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libportablexdr.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libasprintf.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libxslt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgpg-error.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextpo.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libexslt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libz.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcrecpp.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libiconv.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcreposix.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextsrc.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcre.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls-extra.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgcrypt.la -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pmyers(a)redhat.com Flag|needinfo? | -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? --- Comment #14 from Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 12:01:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > 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] > - fail SHOULD: please include this in spec at some point > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. [7] - pass > 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. - pass > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] - pass > 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] - pass > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. [15] - pass > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed > in the spec if they are built.[20] - fail > 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 - pass MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] - pass SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - pass SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - pass Everything looks great except for the packaged libvirt.la, once this is removed I'll approve the package. Thanks -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 --- Comment #13 from Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 11:37:36 EDT --- No, its only a compile time issue. -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Andrew Beekhof <abeekhof(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abeekhof(a)redhat.com --- Comment #12 from Andrew Beekhof <abeekhof(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 11:35:01 EDT --- Is there a runtime issue if they're both installed? -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #11 from Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 11:02:36 EDT --- It looks like you have a mingw32-libgnurx RPM installed - if you build in mock, or remove that RPM it should work without trouble. -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 467418] Review Request: mingw32-libvirt - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization 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=467418 Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |astokes(a)redhat.com Flag| |needinfo? --- Comment #10 from Adam Stokes <astokes(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-02 10:51:53 EDT --- Hi Daniel, Thanks for posting an updated spec -- I had trouble building this package with a simple `rpmbuild --rebuild src.rpm` Review below: MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] - pass MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - pass MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . - pass MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - pass MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - pass MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] - pass 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] - fail MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] - pass MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] - pass 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. - pass MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] - fail i686-pc-mingw32-gcc: unrecognized option '-pthread' testutils.o: In function `virtTestClearLineRegex': /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:556: undefined reference to `_regcomp' /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:565: undefined reference to `_regexec' /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:588: undefined reference to `_regfree' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [virshtest.exe] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aMFViV (%build) 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] - todo 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. - todo MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] - pass (no locales) 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] - n/a MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] - n/a 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] - n/a 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] - todo 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] - pass MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] - todo MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] - pass MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] - pass 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] - n/a 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] - n/a MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] - n/a MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] - n/a 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] - n/a MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [21] - n/a MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] - todo 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] - n/a 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 - todo -- 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, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw September 2010