Bug 211069

Created attachment 138654 [details]
rebuild this rpm to reproduce this bug

Thanks. I will add this to the TODO.

Jon.

Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're
sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted
on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to
make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks.

If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6,
please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly
encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to
refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs
for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL

If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days
from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in
the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If
you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting
the change.

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we are following is outlined here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things
better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers

bug has been ignored ever since and is still present in fc8

Actually, it hasn't been ignored per se. I just prioritized other fixes over
this one because this bug only only affects those using their own config.sub. Do
you have a preferred way to fix this? i.e. we should ship a config.sub, or do
you think we should not be shipping one in redhat-rpm-config?

Jon.

Thanks for refiling against fc8 too :)

(In reply to comment #5)
> Actually, it hasn't been ignored per se. I just prioritized other fixes over
> this one because this bug only only affects those using their own config.sub. Do
> you have a preferred way to fix this? i.e. we should ship a config.sub, or do
> you think we should not be shipping one in redhat-rpm-config?

Neither. The problem is this crazy rpm-macro which automatically replaces
config.sub. rpmbuild simply should not touch config.subs at all.

This one is a problem for me as well.  I was trying to create RPMs for ggx cross
tools, but ggx isn't in any upstream config.sub yet so this is impossible
(without touching redhat-rpm-config's installed files).

Please fix this.  I don't believe there's any reason to stomp on a package's
config.sub.

I can't see a good reason to stomp on either config.stub or config.guess, so
I've removed both. We'll see who complains :)

Sorry, I heavily dislike this change. This breaks for example libnids from my
packages...

Well, we can't have it both ways. Is there any problem with keeping a copy of
config.sub in your package?