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=701347
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> 2011-06-03 14:58:51 EDT ---
Looks good, thanks!
APPROVED by sailer.
--
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.
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=702846
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 13:53:48 EDT ---
Thanks for the review, Thomas!
(In reply to comment #3)
> + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
> ! please modify it to anticipate the "MinGW_future" packaging guidelines
> (i.e. rename it to mingw-gdb)
Fixed.
> ! while the built gdb.exe does work on native Windows, wine gdb.exe just hangs.
> I would expect to be able to enter help etc. Since the MinGW project goal is
> to minimize windows use, I think gdb.exe working with wine should be a goal
> if we are to include the mingw32-gdb package in fedora
No idea why it hangs like that and I don't really intend to dig into wine/gdb
source to figure it out.
In my opinion, gdb is an invaluable debugging tool and as such, it would make
sense to keep it in Fedora, even if it doesn't run entirely correctly under
Wine (besides, Wine is unavailable on our secondary arches like arm and ppc).
If we provide a toolchain to build packages, we should also make sure there's a
way to debug them with free tools. There have been numerous people popping in
to the #fedora-mingw IRC channel and asking for gdb.exe; each time we've had to
send them off to a third party site.
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-gdb.spec
SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-gdb-7.2-2.fc15.src.rpm
* Fri Jun 03 2011 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> - 7.2-2
- Renamed the source package to mingw-gdb (#702846)
--
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.
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=701347
--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 13:20:41 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> mingw32-gtkmm30.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> /usr/share/doc/mingw32-gtkmm30-3.0.1/COPYING
> 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
>
> ! the fsf address issue should be addressed. Did you or do you know whether the
> native package maintainer has contacted upstream?
Filed a bug with the upstream bug tracker:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651797
--
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.
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=642208
--- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-06-03 09:01:16 EDT ---
The big difference between GNU libiconv and win-iconv is that GNU libiconv has
implemented all the character set conversion in its own code while win-iconv
uses the Win32 API to achieve the exact same goal. Win-iconv is meant to be a
drop-in replacement for GNU libiconv as it has the same API interface and all
it's functions should behave the same as GNU libiconv. Projects like Glib/GTK
have also been using win-iconv for some time now in their Win32 releases so
this gives me the confidence that it's good to replace GNU libiconv with
win-iconv (as it's much smaller than GNU libiconv). I've also been testing
win-iconv in the mingw-w64 testing repo (where all packages have been rebuilt)
and haven't stumbled across any regressions yet.
This proposed change was also announced to the fedora-mingw mailing list
recently (see comment 4) and nobody objected to it, so we decided to continue
with the review process.
It looks like the 0.0.3 version was released less than 48 hours ago. I've
updated the package to use this new version:
Spec URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-win-iconv.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-win-iconv-0.0.3-1.fc15.src.rpm
* Fri Jun 3 2011 Erik van Pienbroek <epienbro(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.0.3-1
- Update to 0.0.3
--
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.
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=710101
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2011-06-02 20:52:51 EDT ---
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.
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=642208
Levente Farkas <lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org
--- Comment #12 from Levente Farkas <lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org> 2011-06-02 16:45:55 EDT ---
there is already a version 0.0.3.
anyway do you really thing the a replacement package with version 0.0.3 can
replace a package which version is 1.12-14?
does anyone has any test or compatibility test etc?
--
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.
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=642208
--- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-06-02 16:17:59 EDT ---
Good spotting there! Thanks for taking another look at the package
Spec URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-win-iconv.spec
SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-win-iconv-0.0.2-3.fc15.src.rpm
* Thu Jun 2 2011 Erik van Pienbroek <epienbro(a)fedoraproject.org> - 0.0.2-3
- Moved the obsoletes/provides to the proper location
- Bumped the requirement for mingw32-filesystem to >= 68 because of RPM 4.9
support
- Dropped the %%defattr tags
- Dropped the %%{?dist} tag from the obsoletes/provides
--
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.
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=642208
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-02 15:53:22 EDT ---
One blocker:
- Obsoletes and Provides should defined for the binary package, not the srpm
Small nitpicking:
- The automatic dep extraction that the package relies on is available in
mingw32-filesystem >= 68, so it would be best to bump the requirement up
from mingw32-filesystem >= 53 that the package currently has.
- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is now the default can also be removed
--
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.
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=710101
Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-06-02 15:46:07 EDT ---
I just copied over the %doc line from the native libjpeg-turbo package, so it
contains stuff like readme, the changelog and the license. All other
documentation was excluded from this package.
Anyway, thanks for reviewing and approving the package!
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mingw-libjpeg-turbo
Short Description: MinGW Windows cross compiled Libjpeg-turbo library
Owners: epienbro kalev rjones
Branches:
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.