From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.5; Linux 2.6.15-1.1831_FC4; X11; i686; en_US) KHTML/3.5.1 (like Gecko)
Description of problem:
When attempting to specify a target architecture higher than i386 (i.e. i486,
i586, etc), rpmbuild returns an error saying that the architecture is not
I see no reason the architecture would not be supported. Even noarch packages
will build with a target architecture specified; the option simply has no
effect on them.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
Simply execute the command "rpmbuild --rebuild --target=foobar" where foobar
is any x86 compatible 32-bit architecture higher than i386 (i.e. i486, i586,
Actual Results: "error: Architecture is not included: i686"
Expected Results: The package should have built properly.
Of the 226 Source RPMS distributed with FC4, this is one of only a handful of
Source RPMS that does not support a more advanced target architecture (i.e.
i486, i586, etc). Even Source RPMS in which a higher target architecture will
yield no practical improvements allow a higher target architecture to be
Could you please explain why something that works for almost every other
package but not for this package is not a bug?
I don't mean to be stepping on toes; it's just that I would like an
explanation, so that I know I'm not being brushed aside.
No, you're just wasting time.
For all you know, I could be an I.T. Manager who makes purchasing decisions
like which OS our servers should use: Red Hat Linux Enterprise Server, SUSE
Linux Enterprise Server, or Microsoft Windows. You lucked out; I'm not. I'm
young and at the start of my career, but down the road when I do become an
I.T. Manger, what chance do you think you have of me picking "Red Hat" after
your snippy comment?
You have some serious people skill problems, Pete, and I hope your supervisors
are reading this bug report.
As for arguing with you on technical merrits, I filed similar bug reports on
other Source RPMS, and your co-workers gladly expeditiously fixed them. See
183173, 183174, 183175.
If there really is an actual technical reason not to do this, I'll gladly back
down, but in the end you'll waste more time with snippy comments than would
you have if you actually answered my questions.
This is a bootloader. The code in it really is architecture specific.