Bug 1381120
| Summary: | Please provide %d_arches and %lisp_arches | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Pavel Raiskup <praiskup> |
| Component: | redhat-rpm-config | Assignee: | Florian Festi <ffesti> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 26 | CC: | ffesti, fweimer, jonathan, pmatilai, praiskup |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | i@cicku.me | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-01-19 10:26:30 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: | |||
I've seen there are some %_d_* macros installed with ldc, so adding ldc maintainer to CC. Christopher, can you help with %d_arches? %ldc_arches is in Rawhide, thanks to kalev: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/redhat-rpm-config.git/commit/?h=master&id=e9cc9d94a39bdf94f75fa913173de12485ffdc8e By all means, but what's supposed to be in %lisp_arches? I dont know and not interested in chasing it down. Patches welcome, alternatively some languages have their own -macros packages where this can be done by the maintainers directly. That should be IMO %clisp_arches, instead of %lisp_arches? Because that's where I had problems before: unavailable 'clisp' package on some arches. I'll ping fedora-devel so somebody who knows better than we can propose the actual architectures for %clisp_arches. I can possibly do the research later and submit patch. Why would there be a %clisp_arches? Since when isn't the implementation fully portable across all Fedora architectures? We don't have a %perl_arches or %python_arches, either. (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5) > Why would there be a %clisp_arches? Since when isn't the implementation > fully portable across all Fedora architectures? Good point. I hear this every day: vim-syntastic has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On aarch64: vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp On ppc64: vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp On ppc64le: vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp But maybe there is other problem than architecture? I fail to see f25 && f26 builds in koji ... filed new bug 1392563. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'. Lack of progress/feedback indicates there's no actual need -> closing. |
There is e.g. '%mono_arches', '%go_arches', '%ghc_arches', '%nodejs_arches'. For my package, I would definitely use: '%d_arches' (or %ldc_arches) '%lisp_arches' (or %clisp_arches) Related to: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BFW6B2JX4RYUYVYL5LAFL34KVA2DXR47/