Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467395 Levente Farkas <lfarkas@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lfarkas@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Levente Farkas <lfarkas@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-02 16:38:03 EDT --- imho this is one of the most complicated mingw32 spec file. is this really that bad or it was just written too long ago? a few comments: do we build and run the tests or not? it seems to me not, but the BR wine is still there. ie not %if %{with_tests} is there any reason for this line?: %{SOURCE1} > /dev/null neither mingw32-openssl-0.9.8g-configure.patch nor the inline gcc script has the -mms-bitfields set. anyway it'd be better to everywhere use the %_mingw32_cflags not the hard coded ones. anyway is it a good trick to use the inline gcc script? wouldn't be better to use everywhere the %_mingw32_make macro (but i don't see whether is has any effect? this comment in the sepc: "Disable this thread test, because we don't have pthread on Windows" still valid when we have mingw32-pthreads? unfortunately it's makefiles and configure scripts are very hard coded so we can't easily fix ar, ranlib etc. just patch the makefiles:-( imho the best way in this case to run a successful build and look trough the buildlog to find where and which commands are used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review