https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc19 |wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.el6
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc20 |wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc19
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc20
Reso
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #52 from J
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System ---
wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.el6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System ---
wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System ---
wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wxGTK3-3.0.0-4.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #47 from Jeremy Newton ---
Thanks Jon
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #46 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #45 from Jeremy Newton ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: wxGTK3
Short Description: GTK port of the wxWidgets GUI library
Owners: mystro256
Branches: f19 f20 f21 devel epel6 epel7
InitialCC:
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #44 from Jere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #43 from Christopher Meng ---
Jeremy, what's your FAS id?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #41 from Richard Shaw ---
Thanks... Licenses are still one of my weak points.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #40 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #39 from Richard Shaw ---
Possible issues:
1. The note about large documentation. The docs are already a subpackage but
perhaps the docs for wxBase3 are fairly large?
2. There are a lot of mixed licenses in here, all FOSS, but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #38 from Jeremy Newton ---
Whopps, thanks again ;)
I re-uploaded the files, same links.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and compon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #37 from Richard Shaw ---
Looks like a little type in the spec:
# likely still dereferences type-punned pointers
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing"
CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fno-strict-aliasing"
# fix unused-direct-shlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #36 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #34)
> Ok, one thing we need to fix, if you run rpmlint on the installed packages
> it finds a BUNCH of "unused-direct-shlib-dependency"
>
> Which means:
> $ rpmlin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
noobie changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wildboyz...@web.de
--- Comment #35 from noob
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #34 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, one thing we need to fix, if you run rpmlint on the installed packages it
finds a BUNCH of "unused-direct-shlib-dependency"
Which means:
$ rpmlint -I unused-direct-shlib-dependency
unused-direct-shlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #33 from Richard Shaw ---
Maybe today, maybe later this week. I ran fedora review on it and stepped away
for a while. Now just a matter of checking and checking boxes.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #32 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #31)
> Either way works for me, I usually use the rhel definition because it's
> defined on epel but I doubt that's true in reverse.
Indeed, but this way I don't ha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #31 from Richard Shaw ---
Either way works for me, I usually use the rhel definition because it's defined
on epel but I doubt that's true in reverse.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #30 from Jeremy Newton ---
Thanks for the patch and the tips!
Just a few minor stylistic changes to make it a little cleaner.
Also I used %{?epl6} instead of %{?rhel} to be ready to support epel 7 (as it
uses gtk3); note that I do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #29 from Richard Shaw ---
I decided to see what it would take to build on epel 6 so here's a new spec
with a few conditionals to make it work...
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/wxGTK3/wxGTK3.spec
Changes:
- Builds ag
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Dan Horák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nonamed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #28 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #27 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, I did a mock install for a rawhide build of both wxGTK and my build of
wxGTK3 without any conflicts so that's promising.
Here's my spec:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34775202/wxGTK3/wxGTK3.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #26 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #25)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #24)
> > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #23)
> > > Ok, I've updated my spec file based on the comments so far
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #25 from Richard Shaw ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #24)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #23)
> > Ok, I've updated my spec file based on the comments so far but I want to
> > make sure it's not possible/pract
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #24 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #21)
> > My confusion mainly revolves around the fact that alternatives would imply
> > that the same functionality is pr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #23 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, I've updated my spec file based on the comments so far but I want to make
sure it's not possible/practical to create a parallel installable devel package
before we implement a Conflict with it.
The ba
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #22 from Dan Horák ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #21)
> My confusion mainly revolves around the fact that alternatives would imply
> that the same functionality is provided, but this is not the case.
> From what I see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #21 from Jeremy Newton ---
My confusion mainly revolves around the fact that alternatives would imply that
the same functionality is provided, but this is not the case.
From what I see, moving and patching is the correct way of doi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #19)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17)
> > Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
> >
> > 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #19 from Dan Horák ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17)
> Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
>
> 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported
> and just deletes them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #17)
> Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
>
> 1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported
> and just deletes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #17 from Richard Shaw ---
Ok, a couple of questions/differences about your spec...
1. You move the bakefiles but Dan's spec mentions that they're not supported
and just deletes them.
2. I've got the compat26 option enabled right
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #16 from Richard Shaw ---
I need another package like I need a hole in the head but I will if no one else
will :)
I'm pretty swamped right now at home and work but when I get a chance I'll diff
the two specs and take what I like f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton ---
Hi Richard! Are you interested in taking over this package? If you are, I'm
happy to review this for you this, else wise I can take a look and adapt my
spec file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Dan Horák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #14 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Richard Shaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #13 f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng ---
Why can't we keep 2.8 as wxGTK28?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Dan Horák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(d...@danny.cz) |
--- Comment #11 from Dan Horák ---
I p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton ---
Fair enough, thanks for your input Michael. Though I would like to point out
that some combat packages currently do have devel subpackages; I assume this is
what you meant by deviating from the naming sch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #9 from Michael Schwendt ---
Originally, "compat-" packages cannot be used as BuildRequires, because they
don't ship a corresponding -devel subpackage but only the runtime libs. For
compatibility with 3rd party software. Over time,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #8 from Volker Fröhlich ---
After replacing all occurences of wx-config with wx-config-3.0 saga built fine
in Rawhide.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich ---
I'll try to build saga 2.1. It requires wx > 2.8.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(d...@danny.cz)
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng ---
I have one question, I've read Dan's post in the last year about wxwidget 2.9.
So will wxGTK in repo be upgraded to 3.0 or create a new package named wxGTK3(I
don't prefer the latter one IMO)
Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Whiteboard|NotReady|
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Dan Horák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||upstream-release-monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Newton ---
Fair enough, it'll be a place holder until I'm ready to tackle it or if someone
else has more time on their hands and want's to take it.
Thanks Dan
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Dan Horák changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@danny.cz
Whiteboard|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020942
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
57 matches
Mail list logo
