On 6/21/22 2:39 PM, Sim Tov wrote:
First question is - how far is what I've found from what is needed? Can it be
uploaded as is or not?
Hi Sim,
No. Fedora compiles its packages from source code. It's a hard requirement. Other
distros like Arch or Ubuntu are a little more lenient if you are
On 4/27/22 6:47 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
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.
The real test will be if wine-gecko still builds. :)
___
mingw mailing
On 3/31/22 9:15 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
I think this will get us a working build for x86 and ARM arches.
Almost. x86 and ARM64 build now. ARM 32-bit has a few issues that neither upstream
nor I have time to address. I may end up dropping ARM 32-bit from current Fedora
releases
On 3/31/22 7:43 AM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Actually it seems --target=foo, not -target foo
Both argument types work. I had just ignored the "ignoring..." text.
I'll have to use the bundled libs on only ARM arches. We don't have MinGW for ARM in
Fedora.
I think this will get us a working
On 3/30/22 11:04 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
$ x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -c test.c -v
.. snip ..
#include <...> search starts here:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.1/include
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-w64-mingw32/11.2.1/include-fixed
This path is the Fedora MinGW path:
On 3/30/22 8:33 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Looking at the builds with gcc, there is an extra option passed to gcc:
-I./libs/zlib which is not passed to clang. So maybe this is an issue
with the build system?
You may have looked at an older build as that is pointing to the bundled MinGW zlib.
On 3/30/22 11:36 AM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
ar is failing so the fault is in binutils at the first look.
By the way:
- First of all, should /usr/lib64/wine/aarch64-windows/libdbghelp.a (or any other
static archive) be packed
(i.e. are static archives needed in wine binary rpm)?
If not, just
On 3/30/22 8:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 3/30/22 8:42 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
That sounds like a bug in the package, because our LLVM build has all
targets enabled on Fedora:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llvm/blob/rawhide/f/llvm.spec#_51-52
OK, bug filed.
https
On 3/30/22 8:42 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
That sounds like a bug in the package, because our LLVM build has all
targets enabled on Fedora:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llvm/blob/rawhide/f/llvm.spec#_51-52
OK, bug filed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2070151
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[1][2] that uses
llvm instead of gcc. The 'mingw-llvm' package is the llvm backend in PE form and
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. Fedora ships the 'mingw-w64' gcc-based MinGW environment and does not ship
the 'llvm' MinGW environment. Unlike the WineMono package,
On 3/14/22 4:55 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
Odd, working fine here, though had to add -lpathcch:
i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -o test test.c -lvulkan-1 -lpathcch
Adding that didn't help. It also fails on Koji builders when I tried a scratch
build:
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-1
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
On 1/14/22 8:03 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
If memory serves me right, there were still some use-cases for mingw32, perhaps
mingw-gecko/wine? Michael can you add more maybe?
Sorry for the late reply. Yes, mingw32 would still be needed to build
wine-gecko.
On 8/4/20 3:17 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
* mingw-wine-gecko: internal compiler error: in linemap_compare_locations, at
libcpp/line-map.c:1359 => needs an upstream bug report with preprocessed source
It's been filed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96391
On 7/29/20 1:13 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
The following packages are failing the F33 rebuild. I don't wish to fix them.
* mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good
* mingw-gstreamer-plugins-bad-free
If anyone wants to take them let me know otherwise they will be retired in a few
days
The following packages are failing the F33 rebuild. I don't wish to fix them.
* mingw-gstreamer-plugins-good
* mingw-gstreamer-plugins-bad-free
If anyone wants to take them let me know otherwise they will be retired in a
few days.
Thanks,
Michael
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.
An internal compiler error occurred during the mingw-wine-gecko rebuild.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48000438
I rebuilt using
Every time the Wine group issues a new Mono or Gecko update I know I'm in for hours,
days, or weeks of trouble. Any one of the following items is guaranteed to happen.
- Code that won't compile due to our newer tool set
- Code that won't compile due to our older tool set
- Major Makefile
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.fedoraproject.org
To
On 8/24/19 6:47 PM, Marco Feenstra wrote:
Is this Erik van Pienbroeks legacy?
Yes, he maintained the core packages in EPEL and I maintained PostgreSQL. No one has
taken it over.
___
mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
The MinGW packages for EPEL 7 are in a very bad state. We haven't even started on
EPEL 8 yet.
Should we discontinue support for EPEL?
Does anyone have any use case for EPEL?
I'm going to retire my EPEL branches, but if anyone wants to take them over please
go ahead.
Thanks,
Michael
On 8/13/19 12:01 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
Would you mind sharing your scripts?:-)
Attached.
I will do that, soon.
However, for now I'm trying to get to the list of packages which are
going to impact building mingw-virt-viewer (and creating the BZs was
the way to organise my quest). And,
Hi,
Thanks for creating something that creates bug reports.
I used to send emails to the Fedora MinGW mailing list that would report the
same data.
Could you send an email to the Fedora MinGW mailing list with a master list of
package names, versions, and owners? It would also be a good time
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 Windows?
The problem isn't with us or with MinGW. There's still plently of third-party,
closed source 32-bit only applications that require a full
On 6/2/19 11:39 PM, NightStrike wrote:
It might be wise to add the wine list to this thread to get their insight.
I have not had the time to reach out to upstream, but Wine 4.10 added even more
files compiled with MinGW so I've switched to use MinGW.
FYI, Sandro, if you upgrade MinGW (core
For those not aware (as I was not aware...),
Wine 4.8 (May 10, 2019) introduced support to compile some (not all!) Wine DLL and
EXE files as Windows PE files instead of ELF files. This has a few pros and cons.
Pros:
- Matches what Wine is supporting anyway. Loading of PE files.
- Uses
On 5/9/19 10:01 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
Awesome! Go for it.
+1
___
mingw mailing list -- mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mingw-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 85
+-+
| f29 |
Sorry for the inadequate reports. I'm not sure how useful they are since no one
pinged me about the months without them, but here is a current one.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches
On 05/18/2018 08:51 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
Feel free to update the Mingw32 group and/or replace it with a different group. I
don't have time at the moment to go through the process of updating it. Thanks for
offering to help.
On 05/17/2018 08:25 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
I like the idea. What you're looking for is how to add a new group to the comps
file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_groups
Thanks,
Michael
Looks like a "mingw32" group alre
On 05/17/2018 07:38 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I've had my stuff installed for so long I hadn't thought about it until I was
stepping someone else through the process of getting a basic mingw build system
setup from scratch, but...
What would it take to have a group added to dnf just to install
On 05/14/2018 02:38 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
Where does this script live? Is it something that I could poke so I can look at
it?
It lives on my local system. When I get a chance I'll try to post it on my github
account.
Mailing list ownership has finally been updated so I could push these
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 86
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 89
+-+
| f28 |
I finally had time to fix this script. One and only time I'll run it for F27. I'll run
it for F28 in the next email.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 77
Fedora Rawhide
On 04/26/2018 11:13 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
What's required for the owner? What duties and responsibilities does it come
with?
Interested? I'm going to have Fedora Infra update the owners soon.
___
mingw mailing list --
On 04/26/2018 11:13 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
What's required for the owner? What duties and responsibilities does it come
with?
Allowing messages that hit moderation for size or spam, or muting users that need
it. Not sure we would ever need to do the latter here. For a list like Mingw the
Hi all,
If there is anyone who would like to become the mailing list owner please reply
either to myself or this list posting.
I don't mind doing it, but I wouldn't mind adding a co-owner.
Thanks,
Michael
___
mingw mailing list --
Some owners will be blank for now. Sorry. I was using the pkgdb-cli tool, but with
the change to Pagure this tool will no longer work. I'll have to find an alternative.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 52
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 55
+-+
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
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 61
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 79
+-+
This will be the last report for Fedora 25. The next report will include F26.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 70
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 66
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 69
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 54
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 68
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 65
+-+
Special Notice: All of Erik's (epienbro) packages will be taken over shortly. :(
Thanks, Sandro.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 66
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 57
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 62
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 56
+-+
Hi all,
The MinGW jasper package is behind in the massive security update that the native
package has received recently. The update will introduce a DLL name change. I'm
going to build and rebuild dependencies over the next week or so.
Effects:
mingw-LibRaw
mingw-cximage
mingw-gdk-pixbuf
Hello,
With the activation of ARM and PPC arches in Fedora going forward this introduces a
minor issue for the mingw-wine-gecko package. It has a, not completely required,
Requires on wine-common. Since Wine does not support PPC (and should not be expected
to) there is no wine-common package
On 11/09/2016 01:19 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
We should probably organize a mingw-sig in pkgdb so that everybody who's
part of it would be able to commit and build all of the mingw packages.
In the mean time, while we don't have the mingw-sig set up yet, perhaps
you could ask for ACLs for
On 11/03/2016 04:52 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
I am pushing a new build of mingw-gnutls, but mingw-gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
will need a rebuild. I'm pushing F25 and F26 builds with an override for F25.
I have just pushed EPEL7 updates for nettle/gnutls with buildroot overrides
On 11/07/2016 02:23 AM, Victor Toso wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to push [0] to buildroot just so I can finish some
packages in f25? Two days would be more then enough.
[0] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-762cb57c92
Cheers,
Victor Toso
It was announced[1] and placed in
Hi all,
The nettle 3.3 update introduces a DLL name change.
libnettle-6-2.dll
libhogweed-4-2.dll
to
libnettle-6.dll
libhogweed-4.dll
:(
I am pushing a new build of mingw-gnutls, but mingw-gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free will
need a rebuild. I'm pushing F25 and F26 builds with an override for
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 74
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 66
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 74
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 73
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 86
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 81
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 76
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 83
+-+
On 07/23/2016 05:57 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
I've just pushed updated mingw-headers and mingw-crt packages to both rawhide
and f24-override. Could you test if this is sufficient to get the latest
wine-gecko built?
Thanks, Erik.
The latest wine-gecko build has now gone through
Hi,
The 2.47 Wine Gecko release requires a backport of a commit from upstream to
mingw-headers.
Commit[1]: 7de6266d3cee23493500fef33781fd446b8a8279
Thanks,
Michael
https://sourceforge.net/p/mingw-w64/mingw-w64/ci/7de6266d3cee23493500fef33781fd446b8a8279/
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 61
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 77
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 47
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 54
+-+
| f24
On 05/18/2016 12:39 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 05/11/2016 12:35 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
mingw-wine-gecko-2.44-1
** Package failed to build while it succeeded during the previous mass
rebuild **
Package owner: awjb
Time to build: 7 minutes, 51 seconds
Build
Version 2.47 is currently in beta and wine-gecko needs another round of backports
for successful building.
A Fedora 23 build fails due to missing D3D11 definitions. At least
"CD3D11_SHADER_RESOURCE_VIEW_DESC" is required.
Erik, could you work on getting the backport in Fedora 22/23? Let me
On 05/11/2016 12:35 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
mingw-wine-gecko-2.44-1
** Package failed to build while it succeeded during the previous mass
rebuild **
Package owner: awjb
Time to build: 7 minutes, 51 seconds
Build
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 87
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 72
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 55
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 85
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 51
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 47
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 51
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 76
+-+
I'm sending this out today in case I do not have time to attend to it due to New
Years. Happy New Year.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 60
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 69
I have switched from yum to dnf (repoquery to dnf repoquery) in this report.
Hopefully there are no bugs.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 62
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 73
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 68
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 81
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 47
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 52
+-+
| f23
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 57
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 59
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 65
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 81
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 65
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 80
+-+
On 05/13/2015 09:52 AM, Victor Toso wrote:
I almost forgot about it. Thanks.
This depends on mingw-gstreamer1 and mingw-gstreamer1-plugins-base as
well which I do not own. I've requested a bump of those in March 23th.
-https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205738
Hello,
Nettle 3.1.1 is now in Rawhide for MinGW.
Only two packages require a rebuild:
1. mingw-gnutls
2. mingw-gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
I will take care of gnutls.
You may also use this time to update gst1-plugins-bad to 1.4.5.
Thanks,
Michael
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 49
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 47
+-+
On 04/28/2015 03:34 PM, Zhenbo Li wrote:
I extracted the locationapi.h[0] file from rpm[1] provides on koji[2],
and I can't find ILocation
The sourceforge git interface was lying. It shows the commit as in the branch, but
it is not really in it.
As noted by Erik, upstream will have to
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 49
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 51
+-+
This is the last report for F21. The next report will include F22+.
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 53
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 69
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 47
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 33
+-+
On 01/03/2015 01:43 PM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
mingw-libmicrohttpd-0.9.34-3
** Package failed to build while it succeeded during the previous mass
rebuild **
Package owner: mooninite
Time to build: 9 seconds
Build
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 43
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 55
+-+
| f21 |rawhide
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 36
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 65
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 44
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 66
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 56
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 51
+-+
On 08/03/2014 07:47 AM, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
How do the other Fedora mingw folks on this list think about this
situation
I would be willing to submit updates for a few packages, but in general it is
time to issue an EOL to the EPEL list stating that MinGW packages are not
recommended to
***
Notice: This will be the last report for Fedora 20. Next month will be against
Fedora 21.
***
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 29
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 52
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 42
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 63
+-+
Hi all,
I'm going to be retiring mingw-plibc soon. It was required by
mingw-libmicrohttpd, but with the latest libmicrohttpd release the dependency
has been dropped. I don't have another use for it, and I don't think anyone else
will find it useful or should depend on it.
If someone wants
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 48
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 27
+-+
| f20 |rawhide
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 45
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 44
+-+
Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
In this iteration of the mass rebuild the latest gcc 4.9 snapshot was used.
As the previous mass rebuild was done only a couple of days ago (using gcc 4.8)
all new build failures which are mentioned in this report can be blamed
on compatibility issues with gcc 4.9 or
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 40
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 40
+-+
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 41
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 45
+-+
Tomas Mraz wrote:
I'm rebasing libgcrypt in rawhide to libgcrypt-1.6.1. The new upstream
release contains many improvements over the old one especially in terms
of new crypto algorithm support and performance improvements.
Unfortunately the rebase bumps soname to libgcrypt.so.20 due to dropping
--
MinGW/native package version discrepancies
--
Fedora N Matches Found: 37
Fedora Rawhide Matches Found: 40
+-+
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
