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=653674 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl Flag|needinfo?(fedora-mi...@list | |s.fedoraproject.org) | --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-11-23 15:01:38 EST --- > So, my understanding is that the Fedora MinGW maintainers would like us to > apply this patch to our qt package, is that correct? That's correct > If it is so, since it shouldn't affect anybody else, I'm OK with applying that > patch to our Qt packaging. I'd prefer this to get sorted out upstream, but I'm > OK with the patch if the MinGW folks are convinced it's right. > > (I personally have some reservations about a variable named $${QT_LIBINFIX} > being made a postfix though. MinGW folks: are you sure this makes sense?) We've asked upstream in the mentioned bugreport what the correct behaviour should be (should the suffix be 'd4' of '4d'? where does the '4' come from?). Unfortunately we haven't seen any response to that question so our best guess is to work around it in the qmake mkspecs files for now until upstream provides more information. The win32 binaries provided by upstream all use the suffix 'd4' as well so our packaging looks okay from that point of view -- 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. _______________________________________________ mingw mailing list mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw
