mingw June 2012

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

7 participants
67 discussions

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de> --- I am fine with it either way. However, if we decide on wine-mono we should rename the gecko stuff accordingly... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835863] CVE-2012-2807 libxml2 (64-bit): Multiple integer overflows, leading to DoS or possibly other unspecified impact
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835863 --- Comment #2 from Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov(a)redhat.com> --- Relevant Google Chrome patch: [3] http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=chromium/src.git;a=commitdiff;h=f183580d6… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jun '12

28 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalevlember(a)gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com> --- Regarding the naming issue that Erik pointed out: The MinGW Packaging Guidelines are for library packages that can be used for building Windows apps. But this package is different; it only installs a .msi and no dlls / header files and is apparently only meant for use within Wine. As such, perhaps it would be clearer if it's called 'wine-mono'? This package is really just another component for the wine stack, even though it's built using the mingw cross compiler. I don't think the mingw naming guidelines are applicable here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de> --- http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-5.fc17.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4201110 * Wed Jun 27 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-5 - add conditional so package builds on x86-64 builders as well -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de> --- Yes this is intentional. I'd prefer a setup like wine-gecko but this is what wine currently supports. Here is the quote from: http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono "Unlike gecko, there is only one package containing the code for both x86 and x86_64, as most of the code does not depend on the architecture." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835863] CVE-2012-2807 libxml2 (64-bit): Multiple integer overflows, leading to DoS or possibly other unspecified impact
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

1 0

[Bug 835863] CVE-2012-2807 libxml2 (64-bit): Multiple integer overflows, leading to DoS or possibly other unspecified impact
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jun '12

27 Jun '12

1 0

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> --- I see you're not using mingw32-wine-mono or mingw64-wine-mono binary package names but put the .msi file in a binary rpm named mingw-wine-mono. Is this intentional? Does it contain both the win32 and win64 pieces? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 835686] Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 26 Jun '12

26 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedorapr | |oject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 756776] Review Request: mingw-libosinfo - MinGW Windows libvirt virtualization library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756776 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com> --- Updated SRPM + specfile with those changes applied http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libosinfo/mingw-libosinfo-0.1… http://berrange.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libosinfo/mingw-libosinfo.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw June 2012