On 06/01/2017 01:18 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
I'm assuming your script does strict string comparison and not some type of
version compare? For NSPR the native package seems to mangle the upstream release
versions to always give the third component.
Yes, it is a string compare.
I would argue th
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Michael Cronenworth
wrote:
> +---+---+---
> +-+
> | nspr | 4.14.0| 4.14.0|
>|
> | mingw-nspr| 4.14 | 4.14
On 2017-03-01 08:54, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
+---+---+---+-+
| gtksourceview3| 3.22.2| 3.23.90 |
|
| mingw-gtksourceview3 | 3.20.3| 3.20.3| kalev
Thanks, Michael. Just updated my two that were behind native.
libgsf I'm a few minors ahead, and was still 3 minors behind upstream. I've
updated that - not sure why native is lagging so far behind. I'll reach out
to those maintainers about that.
--Greg
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Michael Cr
Michael Cronenworth schreef op do 01-08-2013 om 08:32 [-0500]:
> --
> MinGW/native package version discrepancies
> --
Very nice overview with the owners listed!
Excellent work!
___
Michael Cronenworth schreef op ma 06-05-2013 om 08:54 [-0500]:
> --
> MinGW/native package version discrepancies
> --
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the list!
I have a feature request: Would it be possible to also add a list
2013/5/6 Michael Cronenworth
> --
> MinGW/native package version discrepancies
> +---+---+---+
> | libgsf| 1.14.26 | 1.14.26 |
> | mingw-libgsf | 1.14.2
On 05/06/2013 08:54 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> | gmp | 5.1.1 | 5.1.1 |
> | mingw-gmp | 5.0.5 | 5.0.5 |
> +---+---+---+
> | gnutls| 3.1.10
On 04/01/2013 08:58 AM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
> Could you also make a list based on f19? Rawhide is already at f20.
Here is an early preview for you.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Match
Michael Cronenworth schreef op ma 01-04-2013 om 08:26 [-0500]:
> --
> MinGW/native package version discrepancies
> --
> Fedora N Matches Found: 41
> Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 34
>+---
On 09/04/2012 12:17 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
Why is Fedora maintaining a whole separate set of packages for the
MinGW spin of builds when they could be all built from the same
packages? Then all packages would be updated with a single effort, and
they would share patchsets, etc. Since building is
This makes me curious:
Why is Fedora maintaining a whole separate set of packages for the
MinGW spin of builds when they could be all built from the same
packages? Then all packages would be updated with a single effort, and
they would share patchsets, etc. Since building is done out of stream
any
Michael Cronenworth schreef op vr 04-05-2012 om 15:12 [-0500]:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > MinGW 32-bit packages version discrepancies
Hey Michael,
Thank you very much for providing this list!
This will help us a lot in staying close to the same version as the
native Fedora packages. I'll tr
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> MinGW 32-bit packages version discrepancies
> ---
I needed to account for my system being 64-bit when I ran this script.
The 32-bit package list was wrong. Here is the correct list.
+--
14 matches
Mail list logo
