October 2017 - openSUSE MinGW - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Running windows apps in build
by Roger Oberholtzer 24 Oct '17

24 Oct '17

I am trying to build a Tcl/Tk extension in OBS. It is called TkImg. It adds support for more image formats. The issue I have is that it insists on building with support for libtiff. And that build wants to run a program that is has just built to generate code for the next part of the build. Unfortunately, the program is a .exe, and so this fails. chmod u+x mkg3states.exe ./mkg3states.exe -b -c const tif_fax3sm.c ./mkg3states.exe: ./mkg3states.exe: cannot execute binary file Makefile:356: recipe for target 'tif_fax3sm.c' failed make[1]: *** [tif_fax3sm.c] Error 126 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/tkimg/libtiff' I don't really need tiff support, so I could patch this build so it does not include tiff support. But I wonder if there isn't a different approach I might take where I patch the build so that it uses wine to run the .exe to generate the code? Has anyone done this in OBS? Any reason it would not work? -- Roger Oberholtzer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1

Debug happening in build
by Roger Oberholtzer 18 Oct '17

18 Oct '17

I have a package in OBS that is doing something I do not understand. It runs the following: [ 53s] + /usr/lib/rpm/mingw64-find-debuginfo.sh /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD 1 This copies the C source files and a few other things so that the build thinks these are part of the package. It then complains that these files are not packaged. I don't want these files. The spec files is, as far as I can see, no different than others where this is not happening. So I just do not see what is triggering this behavior. This one does this: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:rogeroberholtzer:mingw64/mingw… This one does not: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:rogeroberholtzer:mingw64/mingw… The actual content of these two packages is rather similar: A binary library build from C sources, and a bit of script wrappers. The definitions in the spec file are pretty much the same. -- Roger Oberholtzer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 2

Factory vs. Leap 42.3
by Roger Oberholtzer 06 Oct '17

06 Oct '17

MinGW packages are often built for Factory and Leap 42.3. I am curious about the overlap. Since just about every (who are the exceptions?) MinGW package seems to be built from the same source and spec, it must be that the sources for Factory and Leap 42.3 are the same. If the MinGW builds used the sources from the main Factory and Leap 42.3, I guess this could differ. But that seems not to be the case with MinGW. So the main difference is perhaps the cross-compiler used? I ask because I am trying to decide which variant to use. One is tempted to say that Leap 42.3 should be the more stable one. But as both seem to always share the source and the build spec, why would this be the case. Which begs the question: why are both built? -- Roger Oberholtzer -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-mingw+owner(a)opensuse.org

2 1