Fedora source packages

[Jeffrey Smith]

Fedora 21 was EOL'd a month ago, and I don't believe the yum-builddep
commands work without the source rpms either.  So the Old Fedora section
probably could go away.

If a patch of mine to the dnf project is approved, and if a source repo is
added along-side the winehq binary repo, then perhaps the dnf builddep
command can eventually replace that lengthy dnf install command.

One more question: where is the Fedora spec file used for creating the
winehq binary packages.  That should be available somewhere, but I haven't
found it.

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 01:49:40 -0600
> Jeffrey Smith <whydoubt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For the builddep commands in http://wiki.winehq.org/Fedora to work as
> > intended, there needs to be a repository containing the source rpms.  The
> > binary rpms do NOT provide the _build_ dependency information needed for
> > the builddep commands to do their job.
> >
> > Otherwise, the instructions need to be redone, as the builddep commands
> are
> > not really doing anything useful as things stand.
> >
>
> I assume you mean the line about using dnf builddep to install the build
> dependencies on Fedora 22 and later. I've removed that. I've left the
> command from Zhenbo Li, because AFAIK it should install everything listed,
> and all those things are needed, but I'm not sure the list includes
> everything needed. The original wording on that page suggested that it was
> needed in addition to running dnf builddep. Hence the "This section is
> incomplete" note I've also added; someone who uses Fedora will need to
> expand that section, or tell me what to add.
>
> Is there any point in keeping the Old Fedora section on that page?
>
>
> --
> Rosanne DiMesio
> dimesio at earthlink.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20160102/428e19e2/attachment.html>