On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:58:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:11PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > Our goal is to strongly encourage the use of integrated mingw packaging,
> > but still allow native package maintainers the discretion to opt-out of
> >
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:11PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Our goal is to strongly encourage the use of integrated mingw packaging,
> but still allow native package maintainers the discretion to opt-out of
> this if they feel strongly against handling mingw themselves. The keys
> terms
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:45 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
>
> Fast forward 6 months and evidentally no one else was enthusiastic about
> updating the MinGW packaging guidelines, so I've taken on that task myself
> :-)
>
Thanks for volunteering! I converted one of my packages but honestly I've
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:13:18PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> >
On 01.01.23 21:48, Jonathan Billings wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 02:49:21PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I've done the same with all the mingw packages I maintained just
before Fedora 37 branched. So the following native packages now
just contain mingw sub-RPMs:
libvirt,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 02:49:21PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I've done the same with all the mingw packages I maintained just
> before Fedora 37 branched. So the following native packages now
> just contain mingw sub-RPMs:
>
> libvirt, libvirt-glib, libosinfo, osinfo-db,
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 06:13:21PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
>
> On 03.09.22 18:09, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 10:33 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 10:22 AM Sandro Mani
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 03.09.22 17:10, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM 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
> > >
On 03.09.22 17:10, Richard Shaw wrote:
I'm trying to migrate fltk right now and running into an issue:
Processing files: fltk-debugsource-1.3.8-4.fc38.x86_64
RPM build warnings:
RPM build errors:
error: Could not open %files file
/builddir/build/BUILD/fltk-1.3.8/debugsourcefiles.list: No
On 9/2/22 5:07 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> If looking at a single package in isolation it may look wasteful, but from
>>> the POV of the distro as a whole packages with potential mingw sub-RPMs
>>> are a small subset of what goes through
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> If looking at a single package in isolation it may look wasteful, but from
>> the POV of the distro as a whole packages with potential mingw sub-RPMs
>> are a small subset of what goes through koji every day.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the engineer
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 3:45 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sandro Mani
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 01.09.22 17:18, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > > I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sandro Mani wrote:
>
> >
> > On 01.09.22 17:18, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of things I'm still
> > > unclear about...
> > >
> > > 1. If I build the x86_64
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:57:52PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 9/1/22 4:25 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Let me rephrase, is the mingw package going to be built on ALL arches
> > with the expectation that they are the same (like -data packages)? If
> > so, that seems like a huge waste of
On 9/1/22 4:25 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
Let me rephrase, is the mingw package going to be built on ALL arches with the
expectation that they are the same (like -data packages)? If so, that seems like a
huge waste of resources.
The MinGW packages would build on all arches. I believe the
On 01.09.22 17:18, Richard Shaw wrote:
I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of things I'm still
unclear about...
1. If I build the x86_64 package locally via fedpkg or mock, will it
build both the linux and mingw artifacts by default?
Unless you have any specific %ifarch etc, yes.
I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of things I'm still unclear
about...
1. If I build the x86_64 package locally via fedpkg or mock, will it build
both the linux and mingw artifacts by default?
2. Since mingw packages are considered "noarch" in infrastructure, I assume
there's some
On 26.08.22 05:30, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 8/25/22 11:42 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
You might also want to add the mingw debuginfo packages to those.
Ah, thanks. I'm used to the debuginfo packages being automatically
added thanks to %{mingw_package_header}.
I wonder if we could have the
On 8/25/22 11:42 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
You might also want to add the mingw debuginfo packages to those.
Ah, thanks. I'm used to the debuginfo packages being automatically added thanks to
%{mingw_package_header}.
I wonder if we could have the install macros updated to handle this in a
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 06:42:52PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
>
> On 25.08.22 18:40, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 8/25/22 1:33 AM, Marián Konček wrote:
> > > I could however open a PR to add them to the native packages. Do we
> > > have some libraries where this unification is already
On 25.08.22 18:40, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 8/25/22 1:33 AM, Marián Konček wrote:
I could however open a PR to add them to the native packages. Do we
have some libraries where this unification is already finished so
that I could take inspiration?
FAudio
vkd3d
You might also want to
On 8/25/22 1:33 AM, Marián Konček wrote:
I could however open a PR to add them to the native packages. Do we have some
libraries where this unification is already finished so that I could take inspiration?
FAudio
vkd3d
___
devel mailing list --
On 25.08.22 08:33, Marián Konček wrote:
I noticed this thread, I develop a personal project where I use about
10 C libraries, I noticed that "glfw", "libsodium" and "libevent" do
not have their corresponding mingw packages. I was considering trying
to package them but unifying them with the
I noticed this thread, I develop a personal project where I use about 10
C libraries, I noticed that "glfw", "libsodium" and "libevent" do not
have their corresponding mingw packages. I was considering trying to
package them but unifying them with the native packages would be better.
Of
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM 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
> > >
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM 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 mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
> > looking
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 mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
> looking at these packages where I maintain both variants:
I've done the same
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 mingw
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 as I
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 mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
> >
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 mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
> looking at these packages where I maintain both variants:
Thanks for driving
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?
Upstream wine has begun to depend on .dll files. Wine 7.3
33 matches
Mail list logo
