Bug 2355763 - Please build package for ppc64le
Summary: Please build package for ppc64le
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: acpid
Version: 42
Hardware: ppc64le
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jaroslav Škarvada
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-28 13:53 UTC by Trung Lê
Modified: 2025-04-25 02:11 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: acpid-2.0.34-12.fc43 acpid-2.0.34-13.fc42
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-04-14 17:51:56 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Trung Lê 2025-03-28 13:53:06 UTC
Is there any reason why ppc64le is not supported? Other distro such as Debian has always been supporting ppc64le package. It would mean the world to the OpenPOWER community if this package is also built for ppc64le

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-03 11:52:44 UTC
IMHO the ExclusiveArch in this package is relict from the past. During the time more arches were added to it and IMHO it's obsoleted now. I will try to remove it and build for all supported arches.

Comment 2 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-03 12:29:43 UTC
It builds OK on ppc64 so I will keep it unrestricted. Is this packaage usable on ppc64? I.e. is there ACPI support working?

Comment 3 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-03 12:34:04 UTC
I thought ACPI is x86 thing.

Comment 4 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-03 12:40:54 UTC
I.e. ACPI 5.0 added support for the ARM, but I wasn't aware of the POWER support.

Comment 5 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-09 21:44:29 UTC
If ACPI isn't supported on POWER there is probably no point of enabling the package there, i.e. you could install the package there but it would be useless.

Comment 6 Trung Lê 2025-04-14 05:02:58 UTC
> If ACPI isn't supported on POWER there is probably no point of enabling the package there, i.e. you could install the package there but it would be useless.

There are many softwares that implicitly depend on the presence of ACPI package (even though POWER has not supported ACPI yet), for example cosmic-desktop.

Sure it might more ideal to go through all of them to introduce patches to exclude such requirement for POWER arch however I find that approach would introduce more custom patches causing more burden for maintainers. Therefore I believe the best solution is to get ACPI packaged for POWER.

Comment 7 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-14 17:37:20 UTC
OK, NP, I will enable it on POWER.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2025-04-14 17:47:34 UTC
FEDORA-2025-8db997c8b8 (acpid-2.0.34-12.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8db997c8b8

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2025-04-14 17:51:56 UTC
FEDORA-2025-8db997c8b8 (acpid-2.0.34-12.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2025-04-14 17:55:15 UTC
FEDORA-2025-b4972c8071 (acpid-2.0.34-12.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b4972c8071

Comment 11 Dan Horák 2025-04-15 12:06:37 UTC
I am sure we don't want this change to propagate into RHEL via ELN, so it should at least be guarded with "%if %{fedora}" or similar. I am still not convinced removing the ExclusiveArch is a good idea, especially as it installs a completely useless service on some platforms (aka bigger attack surface), it's not just an unused library ... BTW acpid is now built also on s390x and useless there as well. In my opinion the users of acpid should be fixed instead.

Comment 12 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-15 13:28:08 UTC
IMHO if it builds and doesn't crash, we can ship it. The package isn't installed by default and the service is disabled by default. I can imagine situations where it could be used with the ACPI events emulator or linked from the qemu guest to read the host ACPI events. No problem to exclude it in RHEL.

Comment 14 Dan Horák 2025-04-15 13:52:12 UTC
IMO it could be "x86_64 aarch64 riscv64" for ELN/RHEL, ia64, x86 and arm are obsolete

Comment 15 Jaroslav Škarvada 2025-04-15 15:27:47 UTC
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #14)
> IMO it could be "x86_64 aarch64 riscv64" for ELN/RHEL, ia64, x86 and arm are
> obsolete

OK, I updated it, I initially used what was originally there.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2025-04-15 20:23:30 UTC
FEDORA-2025-b4972c8071 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b4972c8071`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b4972c8071

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2025-04-17 21:03:18 UTC
FEDORA-2025-13b548e914 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-13b548e914`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-13b548e914

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2025-04-25 02:11:58 UTC
FEDORA-2025-13b548e914 (acpid-2.0.34-13.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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