https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Bug 989850 depends on bug 989847, which changed state.
Bug 989847 Summary: Review Request: mingw-plibc - MinGW package for plibc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989847
What|Removed |Added
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #10 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
You can ignore that, it's a copy/paste issue in my review template which I
forgot to remove
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and componen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth ---
(In reply to Erik van Pienbroek from comment #8)
> The BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem should be versioned
> (to >= 95).
> Please fix this before importing this package in Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #7 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Updated to latest upstream + review fixes.
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libmicrohttpd.spec
New SRPM:
http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libmicrohttpd-0.9.33-1.fc20.src.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
|project.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #5 from Michael Cronenworth ---
Upstream did not accept the patches to remove the dependency on PlibC, but have
accepted the other fixes.
New spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libmicrohttpd.spec
New SRPM:
http://micha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||989847
--
You are receiving thi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On|989847 |
--- Comment #4 from Michael Cro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #3 from Erik van Pienbroek ---
Apart from the licensing issue in plibc this package is okay.
The POSIX symbols pipe and mmap aren't available on win32, so if you want to
continue this route you'd have to manually write replacements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
--- Comment #2 from Michael Cronenworth ---
OK, I fixed the stupid errors, and have a new (correct) spec and SRPM for you.
Use the original links to grab the new copies.
After those fixes, I tried to remove the configure dependency on PlibC, b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989850
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr
17 matches
Mail list logo
