Re: Help with conversion to native build

Hi Probably not related, but the mingw subpackages should be noarch. Also, make sure that the dlls are not stripped by the build process for whatever reason (i.e. -s flag somewhere). Sandro On 15.07.25 23:31, Richard Shaw via mingw wrote: I'm working on a PR for libsamplerate to build nativ

Re: GCC 15 is not working for Wine-Mono

Hi I've updated F43 to mingw-gcc-15.1.1. Sandro On 28.05.25 19:02, Michael Cronenworth via mingw wrote: On 4/6/25 7:40 PM, Michael Cronenworth via mingw wrote: I needed to upgrade wine-mono for Wine 10.5 released last week. The builds for F42 and prior succeed. The build for Rawhide fails.

Re: Rebuilding tesseract dependents in F42 for soversion change

On 01.10.24 00:06, Sandro Mani wrote: On 30.09.24 23:35, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:49 PM Michel Lind wrote: Dear all, This PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tesseract/pull-request/6 was recently merged and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024

Re: Rebuilding tesseract dependents in F42 for soversion change

On 30.09.24 23:35, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 2:49 PM Michel Lind wrote: Dear all, This PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tesseract/pull-request/6 was recently merged and built: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-41b92bf172 It backports a PR that's merge

Re: Adding mingw64-gtk4 and mingw64-libadwaita

gtk4 https://packages.msys2.org/base/mingw-w64-libadwaita https://packages.msys2.org/base/mingw-w64-gtksourceview5 How different is this from what Fedora needs? Or can this just be uploaded as is to Fedora?... On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 12:31 AM Sandro Mani wrote: I'm afraid I'm not re

Re: Adding mingw64-gtk4 and mingw64-libadwaita

Well the best way to have a package included in the repos is packaging it and submitting it for review. If you do so, I'm happy to review it. Sandro On 19.06.22 22:35, Sim Tov wrote: Anybody here?... On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 10:46 AM Sim Tov wrote: Dear mingw maintainers, may I ask

Re: Standard DLL provides

The reason for having the standard provides at all, or the reason they are in mingw-filesystem? The reason for having them at all is just for uniformity. You can "BuildRequires: mingw(wsock32.dll)" and not care whether that comes from Windows/Wine or from Fedora. The reason they are in mingw

Fwd: Standard DLL provides

On 03.05.22 17:16, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 04:46:34PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: Any comments/objections? That seems to make sense to me, is there a reason why it wasn't before? As far as I see mingw-filesystem provided the standard DLLs since the beginning o

Re: Standard DLL provides

Any comments/objections? That seems to make sense to me, is there a reason why it wasn't before? As far as I see mingw-filesystem provided the standard DLLs since the beginning of the package, perhaps @rjones can recall if there was a reason? ___

Standard DLL provides

Hi Currently mingw-filesystem contains # (rpm -ql mingw32-crt | grep '\.a$' | while read f ; do i686-w64-mingw32-dlltool   -I $f 2>/dev/null ; done) | sort | uniq | tr A-Z a-z > standard-dlls-mingw32 Source20:   standard-dlls-mingw32 # (rpm -ql mingw64-crt | grep '\.a$' | while read f ; d

HEADS UP: mingw-w64-10.0.0 coming to rawhide

Hi I'll be updating to mingw-w64-10.0.0 in rawhide over the next day or two. I did an initial test-run here [1] and everything worked smoothly. Sandro [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/mingw-w64-10.0.0/builds/ ___ mingw mailing list

Review requests: mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel, mingw-qt6-qttranslations

Hi I've got two more mingw-qt6-* packages which are up for review, both are straight forward mingw/c++ packages. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2009269 - mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2070708 - mingw-qt6-qttranslations Hap

Re: Is mingw-llvm useful? (was Re: Dropping wine from ARM)

On 30.03.22 15:31, Sandro Mani wrote: On 30.03.22 15:26, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:25 AM Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 3/30/22 7:38 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi What does llvm-mingw mean exactly? FWIW, there is a mingw-llvm package. Thanks Sandro It is a complete

Is mingw-llvm useful? (was Re: Dropping wine from ARM)

On 30.03.22 15:26, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:25 AM Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 3/30/22 7:38 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi What does llvm-mingw mean exactly? FWIW, there is a mingw-llvm package. Thanks Sandro It is a complete, cross-compiling, Windows PE building toolchain

Re: Dropping wine from ARM

Hi What does llvm-mingw mean exactly? FWIW, there is a mingw-llvm package. Thanks Sandro On 30.03.22 14:33, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi, Fedora currently ships Wine 7.3 released February 25th, 2022. Wine 7.4, released March 11th, started to require a 'llvm-mingw' compiler for ARM64 builds

Re: mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 coming to rawhide

On 24.03.22 09:49, Sandro Mani wrote: On 14.03.22 23:50, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi As per [1] I'll be landing mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 towards the end of the week. I've completed test-builds here [2]. Looks like there is an ABI incompatibility (std::__once_functor

Re: mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 coming to rawhide

On 14.03.22 23:50, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi As per [1] I'll be landing mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 towards the end of the week. I've completed test-builds here [2]. Looks like there is an ABI incompatibility (std::__once_functor went away), I'll need to rebuil

mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 coming to rawhide

Hi As per [1] I'll be landing mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 towards the end of the week. I've completed test-builds here [2]. Sandro [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F37MingwEnvToolchainUpdate [2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/mingw-gcc-12/ ___

Re: Linking fails with 32-bit vulkan libs

On 14.03.22 22:11, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi, In trying to prepare the vkd3d library for cross-compiling I ran into a gcc/linker error. Reproducer: char main(void) {     char vkGetInstanceProcAddr ();     return vkGetInstanceProcAddr (); } $ i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -o test test.c -lvulkan-

Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages

On 14.03.22 14:13, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:06:34PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:13:18PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm planning to start merging native and

Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages

On 14.03.22 14:02, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 2/20/22 3:13 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm planning to start merging native and mingw packages. What do you feel about native packages depending on MinGW packages? As far

Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages

Hi Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm planning to start merging native and mingw packages. Initially, I'll be looking at these packages where I maintain both variants: eigen3 mingw-eigen3 enchant2 mingw-enchant2 freeimage mingw-freeimage gdal mingw-gdal Geo

New mingw-python-* dependency generator + review requests

Hi In mingw-filesystem-131 I've landed a new dependency generator for mingw-python packages, which uses pythondistdeps.py like the native python packages. This revealed two packages with unsatisfied requirements, which are therefore now FailsToInstall. I've submitted the two missing packages

Re: mingw-openssl 3.0 update

If there are no objections I'd file a self-contained change to get this into F37. I'd also file a self-contained change for the toolchain updae (GCC12 and possibly binutils 2.38). Sounds good, thanks Submitted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F37MingwOpenSSL3

mingw-openssl 3.0 update

Hi I've tested the mingw-openssl-3.0 update in this COPR repo [1]. All builds succeeded right away except for mingw-spice-gtk which I needed to update from version 0.37 to 0.39 (and as a dependency mingw-spice-protocol from version 0.14.0 to 0.14.3). If there are no objections I'd file a sel

Re: ucrt plans ?

On 28.01.22 22:35, Marc-André Lureau wrote: Yes, it's mingw with a different target runtime. Until ucrt, the target was only x86/x86-64 msvcrt, so mingw32/mingw64 prefix was used. I propose to add the ucrt64 prefix for the MinGW UCRT64 x86-64 Fedora packages. To be pedantic, we should use someth

Re: ucrt plans ?

On 28.01.22 21:50, Marc-André Lureau wrote: Hi On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:27 AM Sandro Mani wrote: Interesting question, it really depends on our users I imagine. Since Windows recommends ucrt since Windows 10 (2015) and you can ship UCRT for earlier versions up to Vista, there are very

Re: ucrt plans ?

Interesting question, it really depends on our users I imagine. Since Windows recommends ucrt since Windows 10 (2015) and you can ship UCRT for earlier versions up to Vista, there are very few reasons you would want to keep msvcrt. Notably, wine may need msvcrt binaries. However, if this is the

Re: Review requests: mingw-python-tomli, mingw-qt6-qt5compat, mingw-qt6-qtwebchannel

Forwarding to this list... I'd greatly apprechiate in particular the review of mingw-python-tomli. Thanks Sandro On 24.01.22 08:59, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi I have the following packages up for review: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2044188 - mingw-python-tomli -

Re: ucrt plans ?

Thanks Marc Just for curiosity, as you see it, does it make sense to keep both mingw and ucrt moving forward? Sandro On 28.01.22 16:00, Marc-André Lureau wrote: Hi On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:36 PM Marc-André Lureau wrote: Any comments? How to proceed next? I wrote a Fedora change proposal

Re: ucrt plans ?

Hi Marc On my part, feel free to give it a shot. To be honest personally I don't really know enough about UCRT to judge the consequences. Regarding mingw32, I think the discussion came up some time ago when I proposed changing the mingw32 exception model to be able to build rust. If memory s

Review requests: mingw-qt6-qt{shadertools,multimedia,webchannel}, mingw-OpenSceneGraph, mingw-osgearth

Hi I've got the following mingw packages up for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2009221 - mingw-qt6-qtshadertools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2009268 - mingw-qt6-qtmultimedia (depends on mingw-qt6-qtshadertools) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

Review request: mingw-python-packaging, mingw-python-pyparsing, mingw-python-PyQt-builder, mingw-python-toml

Hi I'd like to build sip 6.x for mingw, and need the following dependencies: mingw-python-packaging - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005806 mingw-python-pyparsing - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2005807 mingw-python-PyQt-builder - https://bugzilla.redhat.co

Review requests: perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash, mingw-Imath, {mingw-python-}pyephem, mingw-qt6-*

Hi I'd appreciate reviews of the following packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985637 - perl-Regexp-Pattern-DefHash: needed to update perl-Hash-DefHash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988364 - mingw-Imath: needed to update to mingw-openexr 3.x https://bugzilla.r

Re: Adding mingw package for libuuid-devel (with pkg-config file uuid.pc)

Hi 1. Does the existence of these files imply that libuuid-devel was actually added to MinGW, just not as a separate package? /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libuuid.a This one is in mingw-crt /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/uuids.h This one is in mingw-headers

Re: Fwd: Macros for trivial mingw-python-* packages

Hey Miro, I've now added the macros as you suggested [1]. Thanks Sandro [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-python3/c/704b75953c6a887d967abb5edd6ed2ebab682073?branch=master On 06.11.20 09:13, Sandro Mani wrote: (Forwarding also to list) Forwarded Me

Fwd: Macros for trivial mingw-python-* packages

(Forwarding also to list) Forwarded Message Subject:Re: Macros for trivial mingw-python-* packages Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 09:12:18 +0100 From: Sandro Mani To: Miro Hrončok Hey Sandro. Before we proceed, would it make sense to introduce some macros for

Review request for multiple trivial mingw-python-* packages

Hi I've put up another bunch of mingw-python-* packages for review which I used to maintain in COPR but I'd like to move into Fedora proper: mingw-python-pytz - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895157 mingw-python-chardet - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895161 mingw-

Re: mingw GCC help needed: -fstack-protector and -lssp, undefined reference to `__strcpy_chk'

On 7/19/20 4:35 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: So now the toolchain update is pushed, I'll keep an eye on failures during the upcoming mass rebuild. I see the following build failures: Related to -fstack-protector/-lssp: * mingw-openssl: undefined reference to ***_chk * mingw-boost: unde

Re: mingw GCC help needed: -fstack-protector and -lssp, undefined reference to `__strcpy_chk'

eye on failures during the upcoming mass rebuild. Sandro On 09.07.20 14:36, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 00:07 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: I'm working on updating the mingw toolchain [1], and am hitting the situation [2] where I build with -fstack-protector in the ldflags, ca

Re: mingw_cflags vs optflags

e: On Fri, 2020-05-22 at 22:25 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: While looking through the mingw rpm macros, I noticed that we currently have mingw{32,64}_cflags = -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 whereas for native packages we have optflags = -O2 -g -

HEADS UP: Upcoming toolchain update

Hi I'm starting to work on upgrading the mingw toolchain according to [1], I'll be submitting the builds to the f33-build-side-24671 side tag and then merge when all is done. I'll be updating: mingw-binutils to version 2.34 mingw-headers to version 7.0.0 mingw-crt to version 7.0.0 mingw-winpt

Re: Adding %mingw_make_build and %mingw_make_install

On 22.05.20 21:35, Greg Hellings wrote: Please do! --Greg On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Sandro Mani <mailto:manisan...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi I'm thinking of adding %mingw_make_build and %mingw_make_install as counterparts to %make_build and %make i

mingw_cflags vs optflags

Hi While looking through the mingw rpm macros, I noticed that we currently have mingw{32,64}_cflags = -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 whereas for native packages we have optflags = -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SO

Adding %mingw_make_build and %mingw_make_install

Hi I'm thinking of adding %mingw_make_build and %mingw_make_install as counterparts to %make_build and %make install, see [1]. Comments/objections? Sandro [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-filesystem/pull-request/5 ___ mingw mailing list

Package reviews

Hi I've got quite a number of mingw packages I maintain in this COPR repo [1] which I wouldn't mind moving to the main repos, but so far I've shied away from submitting all the review requests not sure if there are people in the mingw group here having the capacity to perform the reviews. Is

Re: New mingw-nsis package apparent breakage

Hello Richard Yes indeed, I've looked into that one a while back, and haven't really been able to figure out why the build output is so different, even by looking at what look like relevant changes in the diff between the 3.04 and 3.05 source trees. I'll try and give it another shot. Sandro

Re: New mingw-nsis package apparent breakage

Hello Richard Yes indeed, I've looked into that one a while back, and haven't really been able to figure out why the build output is so different, even by looking at what look like relevant changes in the diff between the 3.04 and 3.05 source trees. I'll try and give it another shot. Sandro

Re: Heads up: F32 mingw32 dwarf mass rebuild

eed. Sandro On 16.10.19 01:06, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi So unfortunately there is some breakage at the moment because the f32-mpfr4 side tag has been merged, which rebuilt gcc after the sjlj -> dw2 commit. Things should get back to normal as soon as the f32-mingw32-dwarf side tag is merged,

Re: Heads up: F32 mingw32 dwarf mass rebuild

dro [1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8840 On 11.10.19 09:54, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi Michael Yes, I'm just waiting until they merge the packages from the side tag, see [1]. For the rest no particular issues, a handful of trivial FTBFS fixes. I'll post back as soon as [1] is done

Re: Heads up: F32 mingw32 dwarf mass rebuild

ronenworth wrote: On 10/8/19 7:01 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: I'll start with the mass rebuild now. Hi Sandro, Did the rebuilds go well? I saw you had a few hiccups but appeared to fix them. Thanks, Michael ___ mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedor

Re: Heads up: F32 mingw32 dwarf mass rebuild

On 30.09.19 23:57, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi Quick heads up that I'll be starting a mass rebuild of all mingw packages in the coming days (as soon as the side tag autosign is enabled) in the f32-mingw32-dwarf side tag, as per [1]. I'll start with the mass rebuild no

Heads up: F32 mingw32 dwarf mass rebuild

Hi Quick heads up that I'll be starting a mass rebuild of all mingw packages in the coming days (as soon as the side tag autosign is enabled) in the f32-mingw32-dwarf side tag, as per [1]. Sandro [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mingw32GccDwarf2

Review request: mingw-fribidi

Hi And another easy review: mingw-fribidi [1], needed for updating mingw-pango. Thanks Sandro [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1746170 ___ mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to mingw-le...@l

Review request: mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel

Hi Could someone please review mingw-qt5-qtwebchannel [1]? Should be super trivial (basically copy-paste of mingw-qt5-qtwebsockets with the qt module name changed), and I need it to finally update mingw-qt5-qtwebkit to parity with the native package. Happy to review in exchange. Thanks Sand

Re: EPEL support

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019, 8:16 AM Kalev Lember > wrote: Yes, I'd say go ahead and retire them. We are having enough trouble with keeping Fedora MinGW packages up to date and there's no need to complicate it with yet another branch What would it ta

Re: mingw-rust and mingw32, SJLJ vs dwarf2 exception model

On 13.08.19 10:31, Sandro Mani wrote: You have the problem what to do with packages which require rust, currently librsvg2. Without a mingw32-rust, I'd also need to drop mingw32-librsvg2, and all mingw32-* packages depending on it, or split the actual librsvg2 package into a mi

Re: mingw-rust and mingw32, SJLJ vs dwarf2 exception model

On 13.08.19 06:03, Greg Hellings wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:22 PM Michael Cronenworth > wrote: On 8/12/19 9:11 AM, Greg Hellings wrote: > In 2019, is there any reason to just not ship a 32-bit Windows binary? Does anyone > still use non-64-bit Wi

mingw-rust and mingw32, SJLJ vs dwarf2 exception model

Hi I've got a working build of mingw64-rust [1] with which I'm able to successfully build a current version of mingw64-librsvg2. But here comes the problem: As explained here [2], rust cannot be cross-compiled to a mingw32 target using SJLJ exceptions. To be able to offer mingw-rust in the ma

Requested to unretire mingw-icu

Hi Just a heads up that I've requested mingw-icu to be unretired [1], which got retired as part of the FTBFS cleanup. I'll be working on getting it building again and updating it if no-one objects. Sandro [1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8615 ___

Re: Mingw environment and toolchain update

On 10.05.19 00:08, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 5/9/19 10:01 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: Awesome! Go for it. +1 Ok, done https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MingwEnvToolchainUpdate Thanks Sandro ___ mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedoraprojec

Re: Potential packages to add

On 10.05.19 00:36, Richard Shaw wrote: I maintain a few packages in my COPR[1] that I need for a project I'm a developer on and I actually produce the Windows installer on my Fedora machine using CMake/NSIS. Thought I would ask if there's interest in doing reviews to get these in Fedora prop

Mingw environment and toolchain update

Hi I've set up a copr repo with mingw-gcc-9.1.0, mingw-w64-*-6.0.0 and mingw-binutils-2.32 for testing here https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/mingw-gcc9/ If there are no objections, I'd be willing to file a F31 i

Review requests: mingw-python3, mingw-qtkeychain, mingw-qca

Hi I'd appreciate review of the following three packages: - mingw-python3: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704258 - mingw-qtkeychain: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1705064 - mingw-qca: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1705065 First one is just the current

Intent to retire mingw-qt5-qtjsbackend

Hi I intend to retire mingw-qt5-qtjsbackend this weekend, it is dead upstream, and also the native package has long since been retired with "Obsoleted by qtdeclarative-5.2". Sandro ___ mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscri

Intent to retire mingw-qt5-qtsystems

Hi Unless someone has any use for mingw-qt5-qtsystems, I'll retire it next weekend. It hasn't seen a release in ages, and actually it has never seen a stable release at all (version is still stuck at 5.0.0 prerelease [1]). Sandro [1] http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtsystems.git/refs/ ___

Plan to retire mingw-qt5-qtquick1

Hi Following the retirement of the native qt5-qtquick1 [1] I'm planning to retire also mingw-qt5-qtquick1 in a weeks time unless someone objects. Sandro [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/k...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CMGWYSGGHZWMPIP7IOEQLEFAE5OCI2Z6/#CMGWYSGGHZWMPIP7IO

Review request: mingw-pcre2 - MinGW Windows pcre2 library

Hi I need mingw-pcre2 to update mingw-qt5-* to 5.9.0. Review request is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1461368 Happy to review in exchange. P.s.: I have many other mingw packages which I can submit for review at [1], happy to submit them and review stuff in exchange. Than

Re: Qt5 + ANGLE

On 03.03.2017 11:02, Martin Bříza wrote: Hello Sandro, thanks for letting me know. I think you forgot to update the qtquickcontrols package. It's still stuck at 5.6.0 and causes a conflict when attempting to install mingw32-qt\* . I'll try to build it here myself and I'll let you know how

Re: Qt5 + ANGLE

Hi I did similar work for Qt5.7, and these packages are now in Rawhide. I'll gladly look at your 5.8 packages as soon as the native Qt5.8 packages enter Fedora (don't know why they are still sticking with 5.7). For curiosity, does the problem you describe affect the mingw-qt-*-5.7.1 packages

Re: Mass rebuild report for May 11 2016

On 11.05.2016 23:21, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: On 2016-05-11 12:57, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Erik van Pienbroek schreef op wo 11-05-2016 om 19:35 [+0200]: The following packages FAILED to rebuild: mingw-LibRaw-0.17.1-2 ../internal/dcraw_common.cpp: In member function 'void LibRaw::vng_inte

Fedora mingw-qt5-qtbase and opengl API

Hi Erik The current mingw-qt5-qtbase package is compiled with the support for the OpenGL API autodetected by the configure script (i.e. no -opengl option passed), which from what I understand results in Qt using OpenGL ES 2.0 + ANGLE. I have a project which uses full desktop OpenGL, and curr

Re: HEADS UP: libwebp, mingw-libwebp, ucommon soname bumps

On 24.12.2015 15:37, Sandro Mani wrote: I'll be building libwep-0.5.0 and ucommon-7.0.0 this weekend. And also mingw-libwebp-0.5.0, affected packages: mingw-freeimage mingw-leptonica mingw-qt5-qtwebkit mingw-SDL2_image Of which I can rebuild mingw-freeimage and mingw-leptonica. S

Review swaps

Hello To update mingw-freeimage to version 3.17.0 I'd need the following packages reviewed: - #1265854 - mingw-jxrlib - MinGW Windows JPEG XR library - # 1265853 - mingw-openjpeg2 - MinGW Windows openjpeg2 library Both straight forward, based on the native packages which I also maintain. Hap

Review requests

Hello Just posting a list of reviews I've filed. None really urgent, but happy to swap with however has a pending review. - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 mingw-cfitsio - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238375 mingw-fcgi - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.

Re: autoreconf-ed mingw project gets -z via -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld via libtool

On 22.04.2015 18:23, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 04/21/2015 05:17 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: In mingw-libmng I do a autoreconf -if before %mingw_configure (to regenerate the Makefiles with -no-undefined), but then the build fails because of /usr/lib/gcc/i686-w64-mingw32/5.0.0/../../../../i686

autoreconf-ed mingw project gets -z via -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld via libtool

Hi, In mingw-libmng I do a autoreconf -if before %mingw_configure (to regenerate the Makefiles with -no-undefined), but then the build fails because of /usr/lib/gcc/i686-w64-mingw32/5.0.0/../../../../i686-w64-mingw32/bin/ld: unrecognized option '-z' /usr/lib/gcc/i686-w64-mingw32/5.0.0/../../

Re: Mass rebuild report for January 03 2015

mingw-poppler-0.28.1-1 ** Package failed to build while it succeeded during the previous mass rebuild ** Package owner: smani Time to build: 2 minutes, 25 seconds Build logs: http://build1.vanpienbroek.nl/fedora-mingw-rebuild/20150103/mingw-poppler-0.28.1-1 Fai

Re: Review swaps

-) Cheers, Frantisek On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 19:26 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi, I needed freeimage for win32 and decided to package it (turns out this was a bad idea, since I landed in bundled libraries hell). But hey, having survived the pain I might as well submit it for review ;) (along with de

Re: Review swaps

On 07.01.2014 23:48, František Dvořák wrote: On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 22:56 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: Usually I do the mingw packages starting from the native ones. As far as freeimage itself is concerned, I opted for the newest version since there is an RFE for the native version [1], and I

Re: Review swaps

/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Track_Fedora_native_package_versions There can be seen some differences in license fields (LibRaw has some GPLv3 sources for example), or you can compare the bundle-fights... Frantisek On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 19:26 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: Hi, I needed freeimage for

Review swaps

Hi, I needed freeimage for win32 and decided to package it (turns out this was a bad idea, since I landed in bundled libraries hell). But hey, having survived the pain I might as well submit it for review ;) (along with dependencies): * mingw-freeimage - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.

Re: Review swaps

On 11.07.2013 02:02, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi all, I'd like to get my two packages in Fedora sooner rather than later. Feel free to contact me about review swaps for them. I see about 50 MinGW packages awaiting review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979566 https://bugzilla

Re: Review swaps

On 11.07.2013 02:02, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi all, I'd like to get my two packages in Fedora sooner rather than later. Feel free to contact me about review swaps for them. I see about 50 MinGW packages awaiting review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979566 https://bugzilla

Re: Some packages still affected by InterlockedCompareExchange regression

On 10.07.2013 21:22, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op wo 10-07-2013 om 11:32 [+0200]: On 10.07.2013 08:20, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: For mingw32-openssl-1.0.1e-2.fc20.noarch I also couldn't find anything odd with Dependency Walker. I can find it in the rawhide versi

Re: Some packages still affected by InterlockedCompareExchange regression

On 10.07.2013 08:20, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op di 09-07-2013 om 19:39 [+0200]: But to specifically answer your question: mingw-gtkspellmm30 is the only library I noticed where the rebuild did not fix the problem (but the subsequent rebuild did, so maybe it was just a

Re: Some packages still affected by InterlockedCompareExchange regression

On 09.07.2013 19:25, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op ma 08-07-2013 om 01:56 [+0200]: Hi, I'm still hitting the InterlockedCompareExchange regression described here [1] (i.e. entry point for InterlockedCompareExchange@12 could not be located in libintl-8.dll) Hi, Coul

Some packages still affected by InterlockedCompareExchange regression

Hi, I'm still hitting the InterlockedCompareExchange regression described here [1] (i.e. entry point for InterlockedCompareExchange@12 could not be located in libintl-8.dll), and noticed that some packages are still affected, that is still have the symbol in the dll. I've found one package (i

Re: [Mingw-w64-public] Mass rebuild report for June 30 2013

On 30.06.2013 17:57, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Yaakov (Cygwin/X) schreef op zo 30-06-2013 om 10:49 [-0500]: On 2013-06-30 06:29, JonY wrote: On 6/30/2013 18:26, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: The following packages FAILED to rebuild: mingw-glew-1.9.0-4 Wrong strip called from install -s? Yes:

Re: Proposal: Updated Fedora MinGW Packaging Guidelines

Thanks for your work! All fine from what I can see: +1 Best, Sandro ___ mingw mailing list mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw

Re: Packaging best practices: binary tools in mingw packages

On 10.05.2013 19:13, Sandro Mani wrote: On 10.05.2013 17:03, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op vr 10-05-2013 om 16:15 [+0200]: It would be nice to standardize the practice, I think there are two issues to discuss: 1. When should exes be shipped? 2. Should they be shipped in

Re: Packaging best practices: binary tools in mingw packages

On 10.05.2013 17:03, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op vr 10-05-2013 om 16:15 [+0200]: It would be nice to standardize the practice, I think there are two issues to discuss: 1. When should exes be shipped? 2. Should they be shipped in the main package, or in a subpackage (i.e

Packaging best practices: binary tools in mingw packages

Hello, In various review requests, the issue of what to do with binary tools (i.e. exe files) has come up. Currently, most packages seem to either - Not ship any exes at all - Ship them in the main package Some packages ship a separate -tools subpackage. It would be nice to standardize the p

Re: MinGW review party

On 09.05.2013 20:25, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op do 09-05-2013 om 20:24 [+0200]: I'll start with the first two then move along as time permits. Excellent, I'll start from the top of your list as well Erik, just a heads up: the links to SPEC and SRPM in your

Re: MinGW review party

On 09.05.2013 20:21, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Sandro Mani schreef op do 09-05-2013 om 17:02 [+0200]: Hi all, Need a review swap? Look no further, plenty of options here! :) All fairly simple and standard procedure Welcome to the Fedora MinGW party! I've currently got various pac

MinGW review party

Hi all, Need a review swap? Look no further, plenty of options here! :) All fairly simple and standard procedure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916797 (mingw-glew - MinGW OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961402 (mingw-giflib - MinG

Re: I'm in need of libraries

On 15.03.2013 20:32, Larry Pottle wrote: Hello, I would like to cross compile an old linux game that has been orphaned long ago and is in the fedora archives. I need to have a mingw32 specific library of osgcal and osgal. What are the chances that these already exist and if not could they