Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-wxWidgets3.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-wxWidgets3-3.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm Description: MinGW port of the wxWidgets GUI library Fedora Account System Username: sailer This is version 3.1 of the wxWidgets library. Version 2.8 is already in fedora, but v3 should be packaged to coexist with 2.8, as is done for the native version
*** Bug 1409744 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Given wxWidgets' typically long development cycles, do we *really* want an unstable version in the distro? The native (wxGTK3) package is at 3.0.2 with a couple patches.
I wondered about it too, Jan Niklas Hasse came up with 3.1.0. Anyway, I've downgraded it to 3.0.2 now. Spec URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-wxWidgets3.spec SRPM URL: https://sailer.fedorapeople.org/mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.2-1.fc25.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sailer/mingw/build/505673/ (the ppc builders seem to run out of disk space during build)
Hi! I've used 3.1.0 as the build failed for me with 3.0.2. Also 3.0.2 is rather old (October 06, 2014 !!) and 3.1.0 comes with some nice improvements like better hidpi support.
(In reply to Jan Niklas Hasse from comment #5) > Also 3.0.2 is rather old (October 06, 2014 !!) and 3.1.0 comes with some > nice improvements like better hidpi support. But the mingw version should track the native version... So then I guess you'd need to petition mainline to update first...
If 3.0.2 builds, then I don't have any objections. For the new features I'll just wait till 3.2, hopefully it won't take that long.
3.0.2 builds, see the copr repo sailer/mingw
Any progress on updating mingw-wxWidgets to 3.0.2?
(In reply to Jan Niklas Hasse from comment #9) > Any progress on updating mingw-wxWidgets to 3.0.2? It needs a formal review. This review would be in this ticket. As you can see, there is no such review. Feel free to review...
- License should be included with %license, not %doc %license docs/licence.txt docs/licendoc.txt docs/lgpl.txt docs/gpl.txt - Fix the version/release in the %changelog to it is the same as in the header - Group: is not needed Package is approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file licence.txt is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Public domain", "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* CC0", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "BSD (4 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unicode strict", "*No copyright* Apache", "BSD (unspecified)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 8123 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-wxWidgets3/review- mingw-wxWidgets3/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-wxWidgets3 , mingw64-wxWidgets3 , mingw32-wxWidgets3-static , mingw64-wxWidgets3-static [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Created attachment 1518404 [details] Fixed issues, updated to wxWidgets 3.0.4 Most patches were already applied. The two that are left, are identical to the ones from the previous source rpm. I've tested an application built with this package (64 bit, static) and it worked perfectly.
Robert, thanks for the review! Sorry I missed this... But now I can't seem to request a repository: $ fedpkg request-repo mingw-wxWidgets3 1417646 Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60 days ago So could you re-approve it? Thanks, Thomas
Was this ever built? I was unaware of this review and created my own wxWindows3 MINGW package...
(In reply to Thomas Sailer from comment #13) > Robert, thanks for the review! Sorry I missed this... > > But now I can't seem to request a repository: > > $ fedpkg request-repo mingw-wxWidgets3 1417646 > Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over > 60 days ago > > So could you re-approve it? > > Thanks, > Thomas Reapproved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-wxWidgets3
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b1b454864d
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-78ae973bbb
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b1b454864d
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-78ae973bbb
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
mingw-wxWidgets3-3.0.4-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.