Spec URL: http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/?cmd=manifest;manifest=82a0662b5376fe1a90612ed85628670c902a43d3;path=/nsis/ SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-9/src/SRPMS/mingw32-nsis-2.39-5.fc9.src.rpm Description: Nullsoft Scriptable Install System NSIS, the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System, is a script-driven Windows installation system. This package includes native Fedora binaries of makensis (etc.) and all plugins except for System.dll. The System.dll plugin cannot be built natively at this time since it includes inline Microsoft assembler code. The approved MinGW packaging guidelines are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW Kevin Kofler has done some additional work to improve this package, so I'm going to ask him if we wouldn't mind taking a look.
Here is the version I updated: Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis-2.39-6.fc9.src.rpm This doesn't include your fix for the Summary: tag yet, but there are other important fixes in it: * Fri Oct 10 2008 Kevin Kofler <Kevin.org> - 2.39-6 - Disable the NSIS Menu (does not work on *nix). - Drop BR wxGTK-devel. * Fri Oct 10 2008 Kevin Kofler <Kevin.org> - 2.39-5 - Updated 64bit-fixes patch. - BR native (64-bit) wxGTK-devel instead of 32-bit, don't BR 32-bit glibc. - Obsoletes/Provides nsis and nsis-data for migration path from CalcForge. - Fix NSIS Menu not finding its Menu/index.html file. I also have a version which builds NSIS Menu, also without -m32, but the menu app doesn't actually work on Fedora, looks like it is Window$-only. Anyway, for reference, here's that version: http://repo.calcforge.org/f10/mingw32-nsis-2.39-5.fc9.src.rpm Note that these are NOT the packages currently in the CalcForge repository: the packages currently in CalcForge are not fully built from source, all the target DLLs (the plugins) are just copied from the binaries. The packages posted here are *built completely from source* (using mingw32-gcc to build the target stuff).
Ping? My changes have still not been merged into your repo. :-( In addition, we still need to look into the optflags issue (i.e. RPM optflags are supposed to be used at least for the native Fedora parts and currently aren't).
Sorry, I meant to get round to this one today, but I've run out of time. I will attempt to look at it tomorrow morning.
For the optflags, I have this patch: http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2&root=repo-specfiles&view=markup in my old packages, but it's for an old version (2.34) and I also haven't checked yet that it doesn't break the cross-built parts (my old packages didn't build the W32 stuff from source).
I'm just not going to get to look at this in the next few days, so if anyone wants to pick it up, go for it. Otherwise I might get a chance next week.
for #4 i try your patch: http://svn.calcforge.org/viewvc/fedora/nsis/nsis-2.34-RPM_OPT_FLAGS.diff?revision=2&root=repo-specfiles but for me it's not working ie it's also gives stack protector option for crosscompiler:-(
# rpmlint mingw32-nsis.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + OK - Needs to be looked into / Not applicable * Overridden by MinGW guidelines [+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [/] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [/] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [/] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [/] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %i install for details. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [/] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. =================================================== The package mingw32-nsis is approved by lfarkas ===================================================
opps i forget to add the koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1128551
Levente, thanks for looking at this.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-nsis Short Description: Nullsoft Scriptable Install System Owners: rjones berrange lfarkas Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
my comments on the list about the script itself still apply...
cvs done.
mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.fc10
mingw32-nsis-2.43-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.