Bug 239359
Summary: | koji does not build for i586, i686 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> |
Component: | koji | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora, mikem, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.2.2-1.fc7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-06-18 22:30:29 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
Ville Skyttä
2007-05-07 20:27:03 UTC
This is actually something configurable per package in koji. Each package can have an 'extra arches' list to build for. For each kernel module package would have to get these extra arches, just like the kernel package. See the bottom of http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8 To set it, you'd use koji set-pkg-arches See koji help --admin Actually, autoexpanding the arch list from ExclusiveArch is something I've thought about adding (staying within the canonical arches for the tag, that is). Should be easy enough to implement. I've made a change for this in git. As long as it doesn't go outside the canonical arches for the tag, ExclusiveArch can expand the arch list. This means arches like i586 and i686 can be added as long as their canonical arch (i386 in this case) is in the list for the tag. This should reduce, but not eliminate, the need for set-pkg-arches. set-pkg-arches sounds good, but I don't have enough permissions to do it: $ koji set-pkg-arches i586 i686 dist-f7 em8300-kmod koji.ActionNotAllowed: admin permission required Regarding using ExclusiveArch to *add extra archs* to build for, if you want my opinion, it'd be better if that hack just died now that a real alternative for doing exactly what is wanted (ie. tell the build system what archs to build this package for) is available. Interpreting ExclusiveArch that way is IMO abuse of the tag; it's kind of hard to explain why but I think it is wrong the same way as it would be to interpret for example "Requires: foo >= 1.0" as "I require *all* available versions of foo that have version greater than or equal to 1.0 installed, not just some version greater than equal to 1.0". (In reply to comment #4) > Regarding using ExclusiveArch to *add extra archs* to build for, if you want my > opinion, it'd be better if that hack just died now that a real alternative for > doing exactly what is wanted (ie. tell the build system what archs to build this > package for) is available. Interpreting ExclusiveArch that way is IMO abuse of > the tag; [...] +1 I'd even say we remove the ExclusiveArch hack from the current kmod specification soon when koji is properly capable to do what we want without such hacks (e.g. when the "koji.ActionNotAllowed: admin permission required" problem or any other problems that show up got solved) Frankly the extra-arches data feels like a bit of a hack too. It just doesn't seem like the right place the store the data. I agree that using these header fields this way is something of an abuse, but at least it keeps this data in the srpm. You may find that storing it in the db has its share of annoyances. Please see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-May/msg01374.html Seems at least beagle and pm-utils now get build for i386, i486, i586, i686 and athlon, as both contain "ExclusiveArch: %ix86 [...]" Is that a side effect of the change discussed here? /me wonders if we should revert the change for fix all affected packages I think we should revert the change. Not something we want to deal with at a distribution release point. I'll revert the change... Are we going to unimport the unneeded beagle/pm-utils builds? I've reverted the change for ExclusiveArch. You can still expand the list with BuildArch, though. This seems safer and more sensible Bill, we probably just ought to rebuild them (once this change is rolled out). (In reply to comment #11) > I've reverted the change for ExclusiveArch. That was on 2007-05-22 -- but it seems some days ago there were sill packages build for all %{ix86} archs; for example: 2007-05-29 15:10 kvm-26-1.fc8.athlon.rpm 2007-05-29 11:02 pm-utils-0.99.3-6.fc8.athlon.rpm What's the status of this bug? The change was pushed into git at that time, but the koji.fp.o servers haven't gotten it yet. Should be early this week. koji-1.2.2-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. I'm about to build a new em8300 kernel module set in Rawhide. Do I still need ExclusiveArch/ExcludeArch for something, eg. to prevent Koji from trying to build stuff for a nonexistent i386 kernel? I've mailed rel-eng, asking to add i686 to the em8300-kmod dist-f8 extra arches (no more need for i586 it seems). |