Bug 471263
Summary: | Disable kernel-firmware package/dependency for s390x | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Brad Hinson <bhinson> |
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Kernel Maintainer List <kernel-maint> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 10 | CC: | dwmw2, kernel-maint, maurizio.antillon, quintela |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | s390x | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-06-25 15:15:51 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: | 467765 |
Description
Brad Hinson
2008-11-12 17:53:29 UTC
does adding %define with_firmware 0 to the %ifarch s390x section around line 300 in the specfile do the right thing? rpmbuild of kernel doesn't produce a kernel-firmware package on _any_ architecture. The kernel-firmware package is noarch. oh, yeah. hmm. we could make the Requires: dependant on %ifnarch s390x maybe. given the absence of PCI/USB on s390's I doubt there's anything useful in the firmware rpm at all on that arch. That would be possible. But why bother with a special case? %define kernel_prereq ... kernel-firmware >= %{rpmversion}-%{pkg_release} With that line in the spec, wouldn't all arches depend on kernel-firmware? I think we need a special case here. completely untested, but something like .. --- F-10/kernel.spec~ 2008-11-12 14:07:13.000000000 -0500 +++ F-10/kernel.spec 2008-11-12 14:09:58.000000000 -0500 @@ -422,7 +422,10 @@ Summary: The Linux kernel # Packages that need to be installed before the kernel is, because the %post # scripts use them. # -%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, mkinitrd >= 6.0.61-1, kernel-firmware >= %{rpmversion}-%{pkg_release} +%define kernel_prereq fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, mkinitrd >= 6.0.61-1 +%ifnarch s390x +%define kernelfw_prereq kernel-firmware >= %{rpmversion}-%{pkg_release} +%endif # # This macro does requires, provides, conflicts, obsoletes for a kernel package. @@ -437,7 +440,7 @@ Provides: kernel-drm = 4.3.0\ Provides: kernel-drm-nouveau = 11\ Provides: kernel-modeset = 1\ Provides: kernel-uname-r = %{KVERREL}%{?1:.%{1}}\ -Requires(pre): %{kernel_prereq}\ +Requires(pre): %{kernel_prereq} %{kernelfw_prereq}\ Conflicts: %{kernel_dot_org_conflicts}\ Conflicts: %{package_conflicts}\ %{expand:%%{?kernel%{?1:_%{1}}_conflicts:Conflicts: %%{kernel%{?1:_%{1}}_conflicts}}}\ might do the trick. That, together with comment 1, should do the trick. Comment 6 leads to rpmbuild error though: error: line 484: Dependency tokens must begin with alpha-numeric, '_' or '/': Requires(pre): fileutils, module-init-tools, initscripts >= 8.11.1-1, mkinitrd >= 6.0.39-1 %{kernel_fw_prereq} I think it's because Requires(pre) is inside of "%define kernel_reqprovconf", so maybe it doesn't like the space between %{kernel_prereq} and %{kernel_fw_prereq}\ (In reply to comment #5) > %define kernel_prereq ... kernel-firmware >= %{rpmversion}-%{pkg_release} > > With that line in the spec, wouldn't all arches depend on kernel-firmware? Yes. That is the intention. > I think we need a special case here. Why? Why not just install kernel-firmware? I see no need for making S390 a special case. In response to comment 2: If rpmbuild doesn't produce kernel-firmware on any arch, what is the process to produce this package? I'm bootstrapping Fedora on a new arch using koji, so it would be nice if rpmbuild produced all necessary packages automatically. Stepping back though, do we expect that kernel-firmware is necessary on every arch? Looking through the file list, this looks like firmware for x86* only. Why the hard dependency on a package most other arches will never need? The kernel is a special case -- it's built for 'noarch' in addition to the binary architectures. It is the noarch build which produces the kernel-doc and kernel-firmware packages. The contents of the kernel-firmware package are not only for x86*. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping I did rpmbuild --target noarch, and on s390x there was no kernel-firmware package built. If the contents of kernel-firmware aren't for x86 only, then can we maintain a list of arches where firmware doesn't apply? (starting with s390x) (In reply to comment #13) > I did rpmbuild --target noarch, and on s390x there was no kernel-firmware > package built. What did get built? Sorry, lost my test system. I believe this has been worked out in F11, or it's not an issue any more. Closing. |