[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #1 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-30 12:18:18 EST --- I am very opposed to this renamer be cause this package doesn't provide what it name suggests. It is not a general cross-toolchain filesystem. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 Dan Horák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@danny.cz --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák 2011-01-30 12:31:30 EST --- I'm with Ralf here, unless the whole cross-* package set will provide a general cross-tools framework, the naming of the packages is misleading. It looks to me as very mingw oriented. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-30 13:03:57 EST --- Also, there is another issue with this package: The target name: x86_64-w64-mingw32 # rpm -qlp /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/mingw64-filesystem-65-1.fc15.noarch.rpm ... /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 ... I fail to understand what this target shall be. To me, this name seems unlogic. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 Richard W.M. Jones changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rjo...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones 2011-01-30 13:06:21 EST --- I think Ralf has a point here. However the problem with the proposal is simply the choice of "cross-*" as a prefix. I believe since this is not a truly general cross-compiler (ie. not targetted at arm embedded etc) that we should just come up with another prefix. Since we aim to cross-compiler for common desktop platforms (ie. Windows 32/64 + Mac OS X) how about calling it crossdesktop-*? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-01-30 13:35:51 EST --- As mentioned on the link in the initial message the plan is to rename all current mingw32-* package to cross-*. The idea behind this is that packagers can maintain packages for multiple targets using a single spec file. Initially we will support the Win32 and Win64 targets in this framework, but support for Mac OS X can be added quite easily (it has been proven to work in a testing repository, see the link in the initial message for more about that) I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard suggested if you prefer that The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but it's the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. I just dropped the question about the history behind that name in the #mingw-w64 IRC channel and I got multiple answers back. The main reason is compatibility. Think about the autotools where a large amount of checks look for the term 'mingw32' in the target to find out whether the target is a MS Windows one. When the 'w64' part in the target name is used certain compiler features become available like unicode startup (important for kernel-mode drivers and unicode features apps) and more. More details about this can also be found at https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/mingw-w64/wiki/Feature%20list and http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/217754 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-31 05:52:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > As mentioned on the link in the initial message the plan is to rename all > current mingw32-* package to cross-*. With all due respect, to me this plan is beyond reason, because mingw, rsp. their 2 sub targets mingw32 and mingw64 are only a very small subset of cross-targets. > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard > suggested if you prefer that IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but > it's > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. ... I.e. to me reasonable choices would be x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw or x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 > I just dropped the > question about the history behind that name in the #mingw-w64 IRC channel and > I > got multiple answers back. The main reason is compatibility. Think about the > autotools where a large amount of checks look for the term 'mingw32' in the > target to find out whether the target is a MS Windows one. When the 'w64' part > in the target name is used The 2nd field of a target-triple is the "vendor"/"manufacturer" field, which originally was meant to be the hard-ware manufacturer of a specific board, which later became abused by Linux-vendors to put their brand into (*-redhat-*, *-suse-*). I.e. if mingw wants to follow the "HW vendor" path, their 2nd field should be "pc" (The generic value), rsp, if they want to follow the SW vendor path, it should be "microsoft". In any case, the vendor field is without much practical importance and unused in 99% of all configure scripts (ignored). What matters are the "cpu"-field and the "OS" field - They need to provide sufficient information for configure scripts to destinguish architectures and OSes. That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones 2011-01-31 06:17:04 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which Richard > > suggested if you prefer that > > IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it > currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. "mingw" has always been an unfortunate choice of name. Really the cross-compiler has very little to do with the mingw.org project. mingw-w64 is a completely separate fork. And there is a separate mingw.org-related binary project which is nothing to do with us, but people frequently get confused over the two. And *crucially* we are adding support for Mac OS X which doesn't use mingw at all. This is why I'm suggesting crossdesktop-* or some other choice which doesn't involve the 5 letters "mingw". > > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, but > > it's > > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. > Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) > > x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: > - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", > => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" > - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. > ... > > I.e. to me reasonable choices would be > x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw > or > x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 Whatever you think doesn't really matter, since this is the choice of the mingw-w64 upstream project. They are in a much better situation to judge how it should work. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-31 06:53:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > I'm okay with using a different prefix like the crossdesktop-* which > > > Richard > > > suggested if you prefer that > > > > IMO, mingw-filesystem would be an appropriate name, because that's what it > > currently is - The rest of it is wishful thinking. > > "mingw" has always been an unfortunate choice of name. I disagree - It would have been the appropriate choice. > And *crucially* we are adding support for Mac OS X which doesn't > use mingw at all. Well, has the licence/copyright situation changed? To my knowledge MacOSX requires non-free code from Apple. > > > The target name x86_64-w64-mingw32 might look a bit odd for outsiders, > > > but it's > > > the default target name used by the mingw-w64 developers. > > Well, ... this doesn't mean their decisions are wise ;) > > > > x86_64-w64-mingw32 (cpu=x86_64, os=mingw32) is multiply problematic: > > - the "32" in mingw32 originally stood for "MinGW on 32bit Windows", > > => a 64bit MinGW for "MinGW on 64bit Windows" should be named "mingw64" > > - Configure scripts currently presume "os=mingw32" to imply 32bit MinGW. > > ... > > > > I.e. to me reasonable choices would be > > x86_64-pc-mingw + i686-pc-mingw > > or > > x86_64-pc-mingw64 + i686-pc-mingw32 > > Whatever you think doesn't really matter, Correct. > since this is the > choice of the mingw-w64 upstream project. They are in a much > better situation to judge how it should work. I disagree. One thing I had learnt with MinGW is them being Windows focused folks with little GNU SW experience - One of the situation this shows is situations like these. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@cchtml.com --- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth 2011-01-31 09:33:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #8) > I disagree - It would have been the appropriate choice. Why is it if you didn't create it, Ralf, you always disagree? cross-* is the /start/ of the cross compiler project. Eric/Richard are starting the cross compiler project with only MinGW, but with the plan to expand to OS X and whatever other cross compiling. In your mind, Ralf, Eric/Richard need to keep the cross compiler package names split?? THAT doesn't make any sense. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-31 11:32:25 EST --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > I disagree - It would have been the appropriate choice. > > Why is it if you didn't create it, ... because I don't see any sense in such a package. ... and because I have a cross compiler infrastructure package of my own, [rude as-hominem offense delete] > cross-* is the /start/ of the cross compiler project. It's some people's cross-compiler project - Not mine. > In your mind, Ralf, Eric/Richard need to keep the cross compiler package names > split?? They can call their package by what ever name they want, but calling a package "cross-filesystem", which doesn't do what it claims, is not useful. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones 2011-01-31 11:36:31 EST --- OK, but I don't think crossdesktop-* is going to offend anyone's sensibilities. It reflects what we are doing: offering a cross compiler that targets the most popular desktop systems out there today (where "most popular" is measured by market share, and "desktop" doesn't include embedded/mobile systems). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #12 from Ralf Corsepius 2011-01-31 11:58:42 EST --- And how do you want to continue with binutils, gcc etc? Consider packaging cross compilers from Fedora to non-native Fedora targets, other Linuxes (RHEL4/5/6, openSUSE-11.2/11.3, ...), some "plain metal targets", exotic embedded target or other *nix (e.g. *BSDs). It's simply impractiable to build all of them from one "single unified source-package" (not even MinGW32/MinGW64/MacOSX) => cross-binutils/gcc packages don't even make less sense than a common base 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-01-31 14:15:33 EST --- > (In reply to comment #5) > That said, I consider x86_64-w64-mingw32 to be a mistake. I agree with you that x86_64-w64-mingw32 isn't an ideal name, but we've got to do with it for now. While it technically could be made possible to use a different target it will require patching of almost every package and the toolchain itself will divert from upstream. Is that really a direction we should be going..? How about these names for the source rpms: crossdesktop-filesystem - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesytem and (later) darwinx-filesystem mingw-binutils - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-binutils and mingw64-binutils mingw-gcc - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-gcc and mingw64-gcc mingw-headers - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-headers and mingw64-headers mingw-crt - Contains the binary RPMs mingw32-crt and mingw64-crt and in the future, once legal issues get cleared : darwinx-odcctools - Contains the binutils equivalent for Mac OS X darwinx-gcc - Contains Apple's version of GCC(In reply to comment #6) darwinx-sdk - Contains the various headers and libraries of a default Mac OS X environment All mingw32-* packages could then get renamed to crossdesktop-* packages and produce binary RPMs called mingw32-*, mingw64-* (and later darwinx-*) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 amori...@users.sourceforge.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amorilia@users.sourceforge. ||net --- Comment #14 from amori...@users.sourceforge.net 2011-02-12 04:50:24 EST --- I am no packager (yet), but I really would like to help out. Any objections if I take this for review, or is this against the rules? For clarity: I've so far only done one Fedora package review in the past (mingw32-win-iconv, BZ #642208), so this would be my second one. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts 2011-02-15 14:36:31 EST --- If you are not a packager, you cannot approve packages or take review tickets but of course you are welcome to make all the comments you like. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784
--- Comment #16 from amori...@users.sourceforge.net 2011-02-21 15:51:33 EST ---
Ok. Informal review follows.
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
? Unsure
===
Rpmlint
===
$ rpmlint cross-filesystem.spec
cross-filesystem.spec:75: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:76: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:77: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(advapi32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:78: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(user32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:79: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(dnsapi.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:80: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(ole32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:81: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(shell32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:82: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(shlwapi.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:83: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(ws2_32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:84: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(gdi32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:85: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(msimg32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:86: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(comctl32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:87: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(comdlg32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:88: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(imm32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:89: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(crypt32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:90: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(oleaut32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:91: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(opengl32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:92: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(version.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:93: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(winmm.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:94: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(rpcrt4.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:95: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(gdiplus.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:96: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(usp10.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:97: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(msdmo.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:98: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw32(odbc32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:108: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:109: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:110: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(advapi32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:111: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(user32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:112: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(dnsapi.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:113: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(ole32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:114: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(shell32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:115: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(shlwapi.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:116: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(ws2_32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:117: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(gdi32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:118: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(msimg32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:119: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(comctl32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:120: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(comdlg32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:121: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(imm32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:122: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(crypt32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:123: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(oleaut32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:124: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(opengl32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:125: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(version.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:126: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(winmm.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:127: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(rpcrt4.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:128: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw64(gdiplus.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:129: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(usp10.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:130: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(msdmo.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:131: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mingw64(odbc32.dll)
cross-filesystem.spec:174: W: macro-in-comment %{_prefix}
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 49 warnings.
[!] Remove lines 173-174 to get rid of the macro-in-comment
warning. Other warnings are obviously false positives (per
comments in spec file).
$ rpmlint cross-filesystem-65-1.fc15_cross.src.rpm
cross-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission cross-find-provides.sh 0775L
cross-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission cross-find-debuginfo.sh 0775L
cross-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission cross-find-requires.sh 0775L
cross-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission cross-scripts.sh 0775L
cross-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission cross-find-lang.sh 0775L
cross-filesystem.src:75: W: unversioned-explicit-p
[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> cross-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment
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=673784 --- Comment #17 from Erik van Pienbroek 2011-03-17 14:10:34 EDT --- After discussion with some members of the Fedora MinGW SIG we decided to drop the 'cross-*' prefix for now and stick with 'mingw-*' as prefix. Support for Mac OS X may take a long while to get ready (possible even never because of the legal issues), so we can use 'mingw-*' for now. We've also filed a ticket at the Fedora Packaging Committee with a request to approve the (updated) draft guidelines: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/71 Updated package: Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-filesystem/mingw-filesystem.spec SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-filesystem-66-1.fc15.src.rpm * Thu Mar 17 2011 Erik van Pienbroek - 66-1 - Renamed the package to mingw-filesystem - Fixed rpmlint issues - Dropped the provides: mingw32-dlfcn for now as we still need to discuss whether to retire it or not - Fixed permissions of the scripts (775 -> 755) - Fixed description of the various subpackages I think it's okay to ignore the other rpmlint issues. The RPM files really need to be placed in /usr/lib/rpm (even for x86_64) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
