Bug 194123
| Summary: | Can't do multlib development correctly because of missing macros | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
| Component: | rpm | Assignee: | Panu Matilainen <pmatilai> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | denis.kostousov, hdegoede, herrold, jan.kratochvil, mishu, rvokal |
| 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: | 2008-01-15 14:07:25 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 150224 | ||
If you rm -f /etc/rpm/platform and use setarch i386 rpmbuild does it work? Appears to, at least from a quick check of /lib vs /lib64. And what was in /etc/rpm/platform pray tell? "ia32e" is my guess ... [notting@xenomorph ~]$ cat /etc/rpm/platform x86_64-redhat-linux Ok, my bad (although there's another closely reklated problem with multiple aliases like amd64 and i132e for x86_64). Arch (as currently set within rpm using uname(2) or /etc/rpm/platfrom) is not the right variable to determine multilib build configuration. This problem is likely fixed (by setting arch from --target) in rpm-4.4.7-0.15. UPSTREAM Jeff, Any chance you could isolate the patch from 4.4.7 and attach that here. Please don't take this wrong: 1) I do not wish to get involved in the whole fork rpm or stick with upstream discussion. 2) I would love to see Fedora jump to 4.4.7 since some of the new features I could really use (I maintain 80+ packages in FE). But: 3) I don't see the jump to 4.4.7 happening soon and would still like to see this fixed. Thanks! The patch to use --target is non-trivial and mired in legacy expectations of how rpmbuild should be configured. E.g. setarch is not the right approach, consider non-linux functionality (which I have to accomodate even if you don't). I don't wish to be involved with Fedora fork-or-jbj discussions either; I feel your pain. I don't see the "jump" to 4.4.7 happening at all. Various people will talk, wring their hands about how big an asshole I am, and do nothing. FWIW, the patches necessary to implement setting rpm's conception of arch from --target were posted to <rpm-devel.duke.edu> in August 2006 with a request for comments. Some of the comments remain to be satisfied. User pnasrat's account has been closed Reassigning to owner after bugzilla made a mess, sorry about the noise... rpm 4.4.2.2-13 in rawhide now includes the x86 arch macros on x86_64. That doesn't fix much by itself, the issue is, um, tangled... |
On any standard x86-64 box, you only have /usr/lib/{x86_64,noarch}-linux directories, and only have macro files for those directories. Hence, if you try and build i386 packages, you will get packages with %{_lib} = lib64, %{_libdir} = /usr/lib64, etc.