June 2011 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger

by Red Hat 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=702846 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-06-08 16:21:54 EDT --- Just now we've had a user on the #fedora-mingw IRC channel which encountered a segfault in some Fedora MinGW package. To help investigate these kind of crashes the availability of a gdb.exe is really necessary. This also helps to improve the quality of all Fedora MinGW packages so I don't see a strong reason to block this package from entering Fedora. After all it's a very valuable aid for developers and these developers are also the main target audience of the Fedora MinGW packages. -- 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.

12 years, 12 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 702846] Review Request: mingw-gdb - MinGW Windows port of the GDB debugger

by Red Hat 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=702846 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: mingw32-gdb |Review Request: mingw-gdb - |- MinGW Windows port of the |MinGW Windows port of the |GDB debugger |GDB debugger -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

future of mingw

by Farkas Levente

hi, first of all i really appreciate the work done by mingw people and this mail only try to help to improve mingw packages. so even if my style is not proper it's just the bottle of wine that needed for me to (finally) finish gstreamer mingw package for rhel-6 (and i still can't finish, only for fedora). but during the buildsys building i try to collect my opinion. imho as in f16 there'll be a mingw32->mingw transition it's time to change everything which is not perfect (even if it's never perfect). afais mingw is now very similar to elrepo (or Driver Update Program http://dup.et.redhat.com/). why? - both provides a lots of similar packages, - both are a made for something already in the base os, - have generated subpackages eg: foo-kmod has generated kmod-foo(-PAE) subpackage(s), - the user written spec file is very short (relative to the generated ones), - both use some kind of (dozens of) macros and scripts to help create spec files. even if i not always agree with the current state of elrepo they are really getting better. so my i should have to start with my default sentence (to my programmer): what is on the cover? (of the cover of the practice of programming) simplicity, clarity, generality. now see what i think about it related to mingw (of course the main questions here the filesystem package and spec files). generality: there're a lots of people who'd like to use it: fedora, rhel/centos, suse, mandrake not to mention the hidden people. would be useful for the "community" to create something which is (very easily) reusable. means only a rebuild needed (and may be the filesystem package can be different for the different disto/people). currently it's much more complicated. yes i know it's only for fedora, but if it's only required a little more work why not we do it in that way? see later my proposal. clarity: it's always tell "if it's shorter than it's better, since cleaner and more easily readable". does the current spec file the cleaner and shortest? imho not. see later my proposal. what's the current rules? do we need static and debuginfo packages for mingw or not? half of the packages has these subpackages half doesn't. it'd be useful to clear it also. anyway what's the debuginfo packages good for in case of mingw? or they are only for cygwin gdb on windows? simplicity: the current spec file the simplest and easily created ones? if i see any of my programmer doing copy'n'paste they already know i'll be very angry. let's see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW_Future does the current spec file has any copy'n'paste? imho much more then needed. do you really think that the current mingw32-/mingw64- subpackage definition is the simplest, easiest? do you really think that anything from %description to %prep has any value? if we drop docs, man pages, etc. cause we referring to the original (non mingw package) then these part has any value? imho almost nothing. here the situation is exactly the same as in kmodtool (ie. elrepo case). their spec files are very similar so they create a template and a shell script which generate most of the common part of the spec file. i never agree with them to use kmodtool in stead of rpm macros for this (what's more copy to all packages:-() but the base idea can be steal from there. they drop su so my proposal: - start from the end and create the ideal spec file template. - enhance filesystem with a few macros to support the ideal spec file. - make some decision (do we need static and debuginfo or not). - let's create some macros which generate the common part of all spec files. - propose the new guideline to FESCo. - rewrite all spec file. the ideal spec file only contains which has any relevant info (let's drop everything else:-) from the ------------------------------------- Name: cross-example Version: 1.0.0 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Cross compiled example library License: LGPLv2+ URL: http://fedoraproject.org Source0: http://fedoraproject.org/example-%{version}.tar.bz2 // all of these defines are optional %global cross_build_requires gettext win-iconv zlib %global cross_build_win 1 // equal to the two next defs %global cross_build_win32 1 %global cross_build_win64 1 %global cross_build_darwinx 1 %global cross_no_debug 1 %global cross_no_static 1 %{?cross_spec_begin} %prep %setup -q -n %{cross_pkg_name}-%{version} %build %{cross_configure "--enable-static" "--enable-shared" "--enable-foo"} %{cross_make %{?_smp_mflags}} %install %{cross_make_install "DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"} %{cross_find_lang %{mingw_pkg_name}} %{cross_files "" "%{cross_bindir}/libexample-0.dll \ %{cross_includedir}/example/ \ %{cross_libdir}/libexample.dll.a \ %{cross_libdir}/libexample.la \ %{cross_libdir}/pkgconfig/example.pc"} // for tools subpackage %{cross_files "tools" "%{cross_libdir}/libexample.a"} %{?cross_spec_end} %changelog ------------------------------------- isn't it much simple and easier to read? is there any _useful_ info missing from it? can it be generated by macros? ok i don't really know that, but i assume it's possible. and if you also think we can choose this way i start to implement it (may be some others can help me:-) ps. imho it's time to drink a lots of water and sleep:-) -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

13 years

3
4
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |mingw-gtkmm30-3.0.1-2.fc15 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-06-03 16:53:02 --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 16:53:02 EDT --- Package imported and built, closing the ticket. -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 15:54:01 EDT --- Grr, don't ask me why I put thomasj instead of sailer in there, sorry ... Tom, can you request the ACLs in pkgdb please? -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net> 2011-06-03 15:50:39 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 --- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 15:30:02 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-gtkmm30 Short Description: MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library Owners: kalev thomasj epienbro Branches: f15 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 701347] Review Request: mingw-gtkmm30 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for the GTK+ library

by Red Hat 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=701347 --- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee> 2011-06-03 15:06:58 EDT --- Thanks Thomas! Can you set the fedora‑review flag too please? -- 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.

13 years

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw June 2011