Bug 1300432
| Summary: | pkg-config dependencies are not arch specific | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Richard W.M. Jones <rjones> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 24 | CC: | ccecchi, jorton, jzeleny, novyjindrich, packaging-team-maint, pknirsch, pmatilai, sergio, yaneti |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-08-08 12:41:09 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Richard W.M. Jones
2016-01-20 19:22:32 UTC
As the dependencies are generated by /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh which is part of rpm-build, I'm going to reassign this bug. Applying the patch below changes the dependencies to:
pkgconfig(atk,x86_64)
pkgconfig(atk,x86_64) >= 2.15.1
pkgconfig(atk-bridge-2.0,x86_64)
pkgconfig(cairo,x86_64)
&c.
However this probably does NOT do the right thing for noarch
packages. I'm not sure how to fix that.
--- pkgconfigdeps.sh.orig 2016-01-20 20:19:14.282308656 +0000
+++ pkgconfigdeps.sh 2016-01-20 20:24:19.877804174 +0000
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
exit 0
}
+arch=`uname -m`
+
[ $# -ge 1 ] || {
cat > /dev/null
exit 0
@@ -28,7 +30,7 @@
[ -n "$n" ] || continue
# We have a dependency. Make a note that we need the pkgconfig
# tool for this package.
- echo -n "pkgconfig($n) "
+ echo -n "pkgconfig($n,$arch) "
[ -n "$r" ] && [ -n "$v" ] && echo -n "$r" "$v"
echo
done
@@ -46,7 +48,7 @@
export PKG_CONFIG_PATH="$DIR:$DIR/../../share/pkgconfig"
$pkgconfig --print-requires --print-requires-private "$filename" 2> /dev/null | while read n r v ; do
[ -n "$n" ] || continue
- echo -n "pkgconfig($n) "
+ echo -n "pkgconfig($n,$arch) "
[ -n "$r" ] && [ -n "$v" ] && echo -n "$r" "$v"
echo
done
I for one would rather see a fesco decree any type of different-than-native development (in contrast to runtime) enviroment installation unsupported. IMHO it would be a huge waste of time to chase down all the corner cases and conflicts. Cross build environments not withstanding, of course. But these are already separate enough. (In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #3) > I for one would rather see a fesco decree any type of different-than-native > development (in contrast to runtime) enviroment installation unsupported. > IMHO it would be a huge waste of time to chase down all the corner cases and > conflicts. This kind of discussion should be on the Fedora devel mailing list. There is already a thread discussing this bug - see link in comment 0. For some reason I glazed over that devel thread. Sorry. Brought my 2c there.. I like the solution , but IMO syntax should be pkgconfig(cairo)(x86_64) and not pkgconfig(cairo,x86_64) as suggested, noarch packages should not any last "()" , but how to know if it is arched or not ? The best solution I found was : pkg-config xbitmaps --variable=libdir if /usr/share is noarch or /usr/lib64 is arched, but some cases pkgconfig don't have libdir and some files in /usr/share/pkgconfig have libdir as /usr/lib instead /usr/share ... Hello JFTR We already have 2 syntaxes on "()" one for .so for example: libubsec.so(libubsec.so)(64bit) and 32 bits means : libubsec.so(libubsec.so) and for package versions !? openssl-libs(x86-64) = 2:1.0.2e-6.fc23 and openssl-libs(x86-32) = 2:1.0.2e-6.fc23 This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle. Changing version to '24'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase This message is a reminder that Fedora 24 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 2 (two) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '24'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 24 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 24 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2017-08-08. Fedora 24 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |