https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
I was just about to propose the exact same thing about the package naming :)
I'm +1 to use the package name wine-mono given the situation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Bierfert ---
I am fine with it either way. However, if we decide on wine-mono we should
rename the gecko stuff accordingly...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
__
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Kalev Lember changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Bierfert ---
http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec
http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-5.fc17.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4201110
* Wed Jun 27
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Bierfert ---
Yes this is intentional. I'd prefer a setup like wine-gecko but this is what
wine currently supports.
Here is the quote from: http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono
"Unlike gecko, there is only one package containi
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
I see you're not using mingw32-wine-mono or mingw64-wine-mono binary package
names but put the .msi file in a binary rpm named mingw-wine-mono. Is this
intentional? Does it contain both the win32 and win64 pieces?
--
You are receiving this mail because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Andreas Bierfert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:19 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> The spec needs to BR mingw{32,64}-filesystem >= 95 otherwise the spec
> looks OK. Looks like I missed this when I reviewed mingw-wine-gecko so
> you should add it to that package, too.
Sure. I will add this to both.
> The only other
Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> I have prepared a package[3] so we can offer a distribution build of
> wine-mono to our users to avoid downloads from 3rd party sites (aside
> from other advantages as the files is needed per user). There currently
> is an issue with winemsibuilder[4] which prevents me fro
Hi there,
wine as of version 1.5.5 has support for a custom build of mono[1]
similar to mingw-wine-gecko[2].
Since wine 1.5.6 wine tries to install wine-mono from a local
filesystem, or if it is not found it suggests to download it from
winehq.
I have prepared a package[3] so we can offer a dis
10 matches
Mail list logo
