[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-24 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System   
2009-02-24 16:02:57 EDT ---
mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. 
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-24 Thread 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=467384


Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||2.43-3.fc10
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE




-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-24 Thread 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=467384


Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE




-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-24 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System   
2009-02-24 04:18:18 EDT ---
mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-18 Thread 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=467384


Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+




--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-02-18 14:24:02 EDT ---
cvs done.

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-17 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #11 from Levente Farkas   2009-02-17 06:20:00 
EDT ---
my comments on the list about the script itself still apply...

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-17 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #10 from Richard W.M. Jones   2009-02-17 
05:52:37 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: mingw32-nsis
Short Description: Nullsoft Scriptable Install System
Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas
Branches: F-10 EL-5
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-17 Thread 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=467384


Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag||fedora-cvs?




--- Comment #9 from Richard W.M. Jones   2009-02-17 05:51:03 
EDT ---
Levente, thanks for looking at this.

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-15 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #8 from Levente Farkas   2009-02-15 15:25:18 
EDT ---
opps i forget to add the koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128551

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-15 Thread 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=467384


Levente Farkas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Flag|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+




--- Comment #7 from Levente Farkas   2009-02-15 15:10:52 
EDT ---
# rpmlint mingw32-nsis.spec 

0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ OK
- Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines

[+] 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 have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[+] 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %i install for
details.
[+] 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

[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-02-15 Thread 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=467384


Levente Farkas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||lfar...@lfarkas.org
 AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lfar...@lfarkas.org
   Flag||fedora-review?




--- Comment #6 from Levente Farkas   2009-02-15 14:58:18 
EDT ---
for #4 i try your patch:
http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2&root=repo-specfiles
but for me it's not working ie it's also gives stack protector option for
crosscompiler:-(

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-01-22 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones   2009-01-22 10:04:19 
EDT ---
I'm just not going to get to look at this in the next few
days, so if anyone wants to pick it up, go for it.  Otherwise
I might get a chance next week.

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-01-19 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler   2009-01-19 20:48:12 
EDT ---
For the optflags, I have this patch:
http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2&root=repo-specfiles&view=markup
in my old packages, but it's for an old version (2.34) and I also haven't
checked yet that it doesn't break the cross-built parts (my old packages didn't
build the W32 stuff from source).

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-01-19 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones   2009-01-19 14:52:11 
EDT ---
Sorry, I meant to get round to this one today, but I've
run out of time.  I will attempt to look at it tomorrow
morning.

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2009-01-17 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler   2009-01-17 13:44:37 
EDT ---
Ping? My changes have still not been merged into your repo. :-(

In addition, we still need to look into the optflags issue (i.e. RPM optflags
are supposed to be used at least for the native Fedora parts and currently
aren't).

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2008-12-09 Thread 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=467384


Bug 467384 depends on bug 454410, which changed state.

Bug 454410 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler 
(GCC) for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410

   What|Old Value   |New Value

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Resolution||RAWHIDE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED



-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2008-10-17 Thread 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=467384





--- Comment #1 from Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-10-17 07:23:10 EDT 
---
Here is the version I updated:
Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis.spec
SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis-2.39-6.fc9.src.rpm

This doesn't include your fix for the Summary: tag yet, but there are other
important fixes in it:

* Fri Oct 10 2008 Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 2.39-6
- Disable the NSIS Menu (does not work on *nix).
- Drop BR wxGTK-devel.

* Fri Oct 10 2008 Kevin Kofler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 2.39-5
- Updated 64bit-fixes patch.
- BR native (64-bit) wxGTK-devel instead of 32-bit, don't BR 32-bit glibc.
- Obsoletes/Provides nsis and nsis-data for migration path from CalcForge.
- Fix NSIS Menu not finding its Menu/index.html file.


I also have a version which builds NSIS Menu, also without -m32, but the menu
app doesn't actually work on Fedora, looks like it is Window$-only. Anyway, for
reference, here's that version:
http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis-2.39-5.fc9.src.rpm


Note that these are NOT the packages currently in the CalcForge repository: the
packages currently in CalcForge are not fully built from source, all the target
DLLs (the plugins) are just copied from the binaries. The packages posted here
are *built completely from source* (using mingw32-gcc to build the target
stuff).

-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2008-10-17 Thread 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=467384


Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||467385




-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 467384] Review Request: mingw32-nsis - Nullsoft Scriptable Install System

2008-10-17 Thread 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=467384


Richard W.M. Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends on||454410
  Alias||mingw32-nsis




-- 
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.

___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review