Bug 325741

Summary:	pm-utils requires vbetool which is x86 only
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Doug Chapman <dchapman>
Component:	pm-utils	Assignee:	Phil Knirsch <pknirsch>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	opensource, rvokal
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	ia64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-10-10 05:51:37 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 Doug Chapman 2007-10-10 00:19:17 UTC

Description of problem:
There was a recent change to pm-utils to make it depend on vbetool.  Since
vbetool is x86 specific this prevents pm-utils and hence the majority of the
gnome rpms since they depend on pm-utils.

I am unclear as to the "right" thing being pm-utils not depending on vbetool for
non-x86 OR gnome not depending on pm-utils but one or the other will be needed
in order for Fedora to work on non-x86.

I am running into this while trying to bring up Fedora on ia64 so I imagine
those working on bringing up sparc and arm on Fedora are seeing this as well.  I
also imagine this is an issue for ppc.

I am open to suggestions on how we can make this portable.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
 pm-utils-0.99.4-3.fc8

worked OK in pm-utils-0.99.3-11.fc8

Comment 1 Doug Chapman 2007-10-10 01:33:49 UTC

After looking at the spec file I see that ppc and ppc64 are already accounted for:

%ifnarch ppc ppc64 
Requires: vbetool
%endif


Can we update this to include ia64 (and for that matter sparc and arm since I
know others are in the process of bringing up fedora on those arches as well). 
Or, perhaps it would be better to change this to something along the lines of:

%ifarch i386 x86_64  
However I am not sure if this is the correct syntax.

Comment 2 Till Maas 2007-10-10 05:51:37 UTC

fixed in cvs