[Bug 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
--- Comment #13 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl
2012-02-25 15:03:41 EST ---
New Spec URL:
http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-headers/mingw-headers.spec
New SRPM URL:
http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/src/mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120120.fc18_cross.src.rpm
* Fri Feb 24 2012 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org -
2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224
- Update to 20120224 snapshot
- Made the win64 pieces optional for now (pending approval of the
mingw-gcc/mingw-binutils package reviews)
- Eliminated some conditionals related to snapshot builds
- Added DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER.PD and COPYING.LIB files
- Added ZPLv2.1 to the license tag
- Added a conditional which is needed to prevent a file conflict with
winpthreads
- Bumped BR: mingw{32,64}-filesystem to = 70
The BR: mingw32-filesystem bump to = 70 was done because this will be the
first version to support the new RPM macros like mingw_package_header,
mingw_configure and mingw_make.
The optional win64 conditional was introduced to make the introduction of
mingw-w64 possible (for just the win32 target) while the new mingw-gcc and
mingw-binutils packages are still pending review. Once these packages are
approved this conditional can be removed.
I've decided to use the trunk release instead of v2.0.1 as the trunk version
contains some interesting features like POSIX printf functions and LFS support.
It has also been tested already in the testing repository for some time and all
detected issues are already resolved upstream. All Fedora packages can now
build fine against mingw-w64 trunk (well, except for mingw32-qpid-cpp, but that
one FTBFS because of the new boost library). Nevertheless, the release
management of the mingw-w64 project is an area which could be improved. For
example there is no roadmap containing the list of expected features and
expected release dates and there's no clear overview of the differences between
all versions which makes it hard to make a balanced decision about which
version should be used. From what I've heard upstream is thinking about
releasing current trunk as v2.1 so I think we're good if we stay with trunk for
now until upstream branches.
Yesterday I asked upstream about the automated snapshots. I was told that the
viewvc instance at SourceForge has this nice feature which makes it possible to
generate tarballs from SVN, for example
http://mingw-w64.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mingw-w64/trunk/?view=tar which
automatically generates a tarball from the latest trunk. However, the downside
is that the mingw-w64 SVN currently contains a link to an external SVN
repository (ReactOS) for the DDK part. The SF viewvc instance doesn't support
generating tarballs which include files from an external SVN repository. When
an attempt is done to build mingw-headers using this tarball you'd end up with
these kind of messages: configure: WARNING: svn checkout incomplete, ddk
headers missing. Upstream is working on eliminating this external SVN
repository link so this issue should be resolved soon hopefully. For the time
being I think it's okay to use the source snapshot tarballs which can be found
on the SF downloads page
Your suggestion about the improved %prep has been applied in this release
--
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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-02-25 15:45:46
EST ---
Fedora review of mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc18_cross.src.rpm
2012-02-25
+ OK
! needs attention
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.src.rpm \
mingw32-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm \
mingw64-headers-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains the license files (COPYING DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER.PD
COPYING.LIB)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 Download/mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2
+ The package builds on primary architectures
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file must handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a Static libraries must be in -static
n/a Development files must be in a -devel package
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages must not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8
+ Proper Obsoletes / Provides for replacing mingw32-w32api
A minor nit about the source package summary Win32/Win64 header files and
stubs -- this package doesn't actually contain the stubs for linking with the
MS provided dll files; the stubs are all in mingw-crt.
Also, the required mingw32-filesystem version is different in Requires and
BuildRequires (65 vs 70), might want to use the same number to avoid confusion.
Otherwise looks good.
APPROVED
--
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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
--- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-02-24 15:16:52
EST ---
The %doc section is missing two license files that are shipped in the tarball:
- DISCLAIMER.PD (referenced from a number of copyright notices, e.g.
mingw-w64-headers/crt/libgen.h)
- mingw-w64-headers/direct-x/COPYING.LIB
Is there a good reason to use a svn development snapshot instead of the latest
stable release (2.0.1)?
The tarball with the svn source snapshot (mingw-w64-src_20120120.tar.bz2)
includes all of the gcc and binutils source code, making it 99 MB in total. It
also has a somewhat different directory structure from the 2.0.1 release
tarball, so the spec file has a lot of conditionals to deal with both cases.
Overall, I'd say that the tarball is less than ideal for packaging purposes.
I would personally put the directory handling conditionals in %prep, so that
other sections wouldn't need to have conditionals all over.
One way to handle the directory layout differences in %prep would be something
like this:
%prep
%if 0%{?snapshot_date}
rm -rf mingw-w64-v%{version}
mkdir mingw-w64-v%{version}
cd mingw-w64-v%{version}
tar -xf %{S:0}
%setup -q -D -T -n mingw-w64-v%{version}/mingw
%else
%setup -q -n mingw-w64-v%{version}
%endif
Then current %build:
%if 0%{?snapshot_date}
pushd mingw/mingw-w64-headers
%else
pushd mingw-w64-v%{version}/mingw-w64-headers
%endif
%mingw_configure --enable-sdk=all --enable-secure-api
popd
... could be simplified to:
pushd mingw-w64-headers
%mingw_configure --enable-sdk=all --enable-secure-api
popd
And current %install:
%if 0%{?snapshot_date}
pushd mingw/mingw-w64-headers
%else
pushd mingw-w64-v%{version}/mingw-w64-headers
%endif
%mingw_make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
popd
... could be simplified to:
pushd mingw-w64-headers
%mingw_make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
popd
And the this:
# Make sure that the COPYING file can be found
%if 0%{?snapshot_date}
cp mingw/COPYING .
%else
cp mingw-w64-v%{version}/COPYING .
%endif
... would not be needed at all.
Another way to deal with it would be switching to a manually generated svn
snapshot that would only include the relevant code, and would have a similar
directory structure to the 2.0.1 release tarball. This would also have the
benefit of reducing the tarball size by about 95%.
--
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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #11 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-23 19:01:20 EST --- Thank you for reviewing this package! New Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-headers/mingw-headers.spec New SRPM URL: http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/src/mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.2.trunk.20120120.fc18_cross.src.rpm * Fri Feb 24 2012 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 2.0.999-0.3.trunk.20120120 - Use smaller SourceForge source URLs - Dropped the mingw_pkg_name global - Dropped the quotes in the mingw_configure and mingw_make_install calls - Improved summary of the various packages Your improved version of the mingw_configure macro has been imported in the mingw-filesystem package so the quotes in various RPM macro calls can now be dropped. I don't have a strong opinion on any of those summaries. If you want to have a generic summary which is used by all mingw packages in Fedora then I guess it's better to discuss this on the fedora-mingw mailing list first. -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kalevlem...@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com 2012-02-22 08:06:56
EST ---
Taking for review.
%global mingw_pkg_name headers
This doesn't appear to be used anywhere in the spec file, is it actually
needed?
Summary: Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
The old summary read MinGW Windows cross-compiler Win32 header files and most
of the MinGW cross-compiled library packages so far have used the MinGW
Windows ... prefix for summary. I think it would be useful to keep using a
distinct summary for all of the MinGW cross compiled packages, although I'm not
insisting on keeping MinGW Windows ..., could be something else as well.
MinGW Windows ...
MinGW cross-compiled ...
Windows cross-compiled ...
Opinions on which one of them would be best? Now that we're going to rebuild
all the MinGW packages with the new toolchain, it might be a good time to make
sure the summaries are all uniform.
The reason I like uniformity is that it gives nice visual clues when searching
for packages in a package manager. It's easier for humans to parse output if
it's all aligned up nicely with similar prefix.
%if 0%{?snapshot_date}
Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw-w64/files/Toolchain%20sources/Automated%20Builds/mingw-w64-src_%{snapshot_date}.tar.bz2
%else
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/mingw-w64-release/mingw-w64-v%{version}.tar.gz
%endif
Could use just
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mingw-w64/mingw-w64-src_20120120.tar.bz2 and
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mingw-w64/mingw-w64-v2.0.1.tar.gz , no need to
include all the directory names for sourceforge URLs.
%description -n mingw32-headers
MinGW Windows cross-compiler Win32 and Win64 header files.
This is only for Win32.
%description -n mingw64-headers
MinGW Windows cross-compiler Win32 and Win64 header files.
This is only for Win64.
%mingw_configure --enable-sdk=all --enable-secure-api
I am not very fond of the quotes, but they are currently necessary because of
the way the %mingw_configure macro is written, to avoid getopt(3) parsing. One
way to avoid the quotes would be to use --:
%mingw_configure -- \
--enable-sdk=all \
--enable-secure-api
Or we could rewrite the %mingw_configure macro. I gave a stab at improving the
macro to avoid getopt, how about this?
%mingw_set_suffix \
if [ $# -gt 1 ] [ x$1 = x-s ] ; then \
BUILDDIR_SUFFIX=_$2 \
shift; shift\
fi
%mingw_configure\
run_mingw_configure() \
{ \
%{mingw_set_suffix} \
%{?mingw_build_win32: \
mkdir build_win32$BUILDDIR_SUFFIX \
pushd build_win32$BUILDDIR_SUFFIX \
%{?mingw32_configure} $@\
popd } \
%{?mingw_build_win64: \
mkdir build_win64$BUILDDIR_SUFFIX \
pushd build_win64$BUILDDIR_SUFFIX \
%{?mingw64_configure} $@\
popd } \
} \
run_mingw_configure
%mingw_make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Ditto.
--
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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rfont...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #8 from Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com 2012-02-22 00:10:14 EST --- Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #9 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2012-02-22 01:47:53 EST --- Thank you for looking at the legal implications of the use of mingw-w64 in Fedora! Here's the latest spec/srpm for review: Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-headers/mingw-headers.spec SRPM URL: http://build1.openftd.org/fedora-cross/src/mingw-headers-2.0.999-0.1.trunk.20120120.fc17_cross.src.rpm -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #7 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-08-29 16:11:15 EDT --- I asked today, but there is no update on this 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-08-28 11:44:46 EDT --- spot, do you happen to know if RH Legal is currently investigating the approval for inclusion of the mingw-w64 toolchain in Fedora and what the current state of it is? We're already waiting several months for legal clearance, but we don't see any progress here. -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-07-01 10:10:00 EDT --- Hi Tom, We've made this package block FE-LEGAL because we're not entirely sure if the contents of this package (and the mingw-crt package, bug 673792) are okay to add to Fedora. In earlier discussions on the fedora-mingw mailing list there have been some signals about a legal audit which should be done: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2010-March/002557.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2010-May/002589.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2011-January/003347.html As we're uncertain if Red Hat/Fedora approves the use of these libraries and headers we decided to have RH-Legal/Fedora legal take a look at it before continuing with the introduction of mingw-w64 in Fedora. Kai Tietz, one of the mingw-w64 developers has been hired by Red Hat recently and he started to get the legal issues cleared in Red Hat internally. I don't know what the progress of that is, but perhaps you could get in touch with each other for further discussion? -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2011-06-30 13:31:33 EDT --- Erik, can you explain the legal concerns here? -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 --- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-05-31 17:15:11 EDT --- @FE-Legal: Did you already had a chance to look at this package? We need to have legal approval for this package (and the mingw-runtime package, bug 673792) before we can introduce the mingw-w64 toolchain in Fedora and we wish to get everything ready in time for the Fedora 16 feature freeze (which will be in about 2 months from now). The legal approval is the main blocking issue for us at the moment -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||673784 --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-04-23 08:44:43 EDT --- The new packaging guidelines have been approved in the FPC meeting of April 13: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-04-13/fpc.2011-04-13-15.59.html In order to comply with these guidelines, some changes have been applied in this package, so here's a new package which implements everything mentioned in the packaging guidelines. Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-headers/mingw-headers.spec SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-headers-1.0-0.8.20110413.trunk.fc15.src.rpm * Thu Apr 14 2011 Erik van Pienbroek epien...@fedoraproject.org - 1.0-0.8.20110413.trunk - Update to 20110413 snapshot of the trunk branch - Made the package compliant with the new packaging guidelines - Enable the secure API (required for wine-gecko) -- 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 673790] Rename Request: mingw32-w32api - mingw-headers - Win32/Win64 header files and stubs
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=673790 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2011-01-30 11:07:09 EST --- Made this review block FE-Legal so they can indicate whether this package can be added to Fedora -- 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
