Bug 175973
| Summary: | Package missing for ppc64 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Woodhouse <dwmw2> |
| Component: | blt | Assignee: | Jean-Luc Fontaine <jfontain> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 4 | CC: | extras-qa, scop |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-12-26 11:57:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
David Woodhouse
2005-12-16 20:33:34 UTC
To make it build, I had to explictly run %configure with both --with-tklibs and
--with-tcllibs options set to %{_libdir}.
I also had to add -m64 to SHLIB_LD_FLAGS in the make invocation.
Hm, blt is in the ppc repo. What do you mean by ppc64? I don't see any ppc64 packages in Extras. Those would be other bugs then. But this bug is about blt. Sorry, I honestly don't understand. Even if the ppc64 repository exists for Core, there is currently no Extras ppc64 repository, and the Extras ppc repo doesn't contain any ppc64 packages, and blt is an Extras package. The summmary of this bug says "package missing for ppc64", _where_ is it missing from? Missing from my system, after I typed 'yum install blt.ppc64'. Perhaps this particular bug should depend on a more generic bug against the Extras build system? Sure, if you want a whole new architecture added to Extras, that should be suggested and discussed somewhere else (eg. in fedora-extras-list and FESCO) than in a bug opened against one seemingly random Extras package. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be an ass but honestly trying to understand why this request was filed against this package; it's almost like if I'd file a "Package missing for sparc" against some of your packages in Fedora Core, let's say for example bluez-libs. |