Bug 1381120 - Please provide %d_arches and %lisp_arches
Summary: Please provide %d_arches and %lisp_arches
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: redhat-rpm-config
Version: 26
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian Festi
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-10-03 06:32 UTC by Pavel Raiskup
Modified: 2018-01-19 10:26 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version: i@cicku.me
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-01-19 10:26:30 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pavel Raiskup 2016-10-03 06:32:36 UTC
There is e.g. '%mono_arches', '%go_arches', '%ghc_arches', '%nodejs_arches'.

For my package, I would definitely use:

    '%d_arches' (or %ldc_arches)
    '%lisp_arches' (or %clisp_arches)

Related to:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BFW6B2JX4RYUYVYL5LAFL34KVA2DXR47/

Comment 1 Pavel Raiskup 2016-10-03 09:17:23 UTC
I've seen there are some %_d_* macros installed with ldc, so adding ldc
maintainer to CC.  Christopher, can you help with %d_arches?

Comment 2 Pavel Raiskup 2016-10-31 08:31:58 UTC
%ldc_arches is in Rawhide, thanks to kalev:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/redhat-rpm-config.git/commit/?h=master&id=e9cc9d94a39bdf94f75fa913173de12485ffdc8e

Comment 3 Panu Matilainen 2016-11-07 14:00:26 UTC
By all means, but what's supposed to be in %lisp_arches? I dont know and not interested in chasing it down. Patches welcome, alternatively some languages have their own -macros packages where this can be done by the maintainers directly.

Comment 4 Pavel Raiskup 2016-11-07 15:14:23 UTC
That should be IMO %clisp_arches, instead of %lisp_arches?  Because that's
where I had problems before:  unavailable 'clisp' package on some arches.

I'll ping fedora-devel so somebody who knows better than we can propose
the actual architectures for %clisp_arches.  I can possibly do the
research later and submit patch.

Comment 5 Florian Weimer 2016-11-07 17:01:18 UTC
Why would there be a %clisp_arches?  Since when isn't the implementation fully portable across all Fedora architectures?

We don't have a %perl_arches or %python_arches, either.

Comment 6 Pavel Raiskup 2016-11-07 18:50:30 UTC
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #5)
> Why would there be a %clisp_arches?  Since when isn't the implementation
> fully portable across all Fedora architectures?

Good point.  I hear this every day:
    vim-syntastic has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
    On aarch64:
            vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp
    On ppc64:
            vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp
    On ppc64le:
            vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-9.fc26.noarch requires clisp

But maybe there is other problem than architecture?  I fail to see f25 &&
f26 builds in koji ...  filed new bug 1392563.

Comment 7 Fedora End Of Life 2017-02-28 10:24:16 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle.
Changing version to '26'.

Comment 8 Panu Matilainen 2018-01-19 10:26:30 UTC
Lack of progress/feedback indicates there's no actual need -> closing.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.