Bug 84438 - RFE: rpm .spec -- can it pick up a couple more ifdefs rpm-4.2-0.68.src.rpm
RFE: rpm .spec -- can it pick up a couple more ifdefs rpm-4.2-0.68.src.rpm
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: rpm (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jeff Johnson
Mike McLean
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2003-02-16 21:31 EST by R P Herrold
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:51 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-02-20 11:20:15 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description R P Herrold 2003-02-16 21:31:55 EST
... building RPM is obtuse with the base Red Hatwork workstation install -- 

a missing BuildRequires: elfutils-devel seems to presently exist.

creating rpmsignature
source='debugedit.c' object='debugedit.o' libtool=no \
depfile='.deps/debugedit.Po' tmpdepfile='.deps/debugedit.TPo' \
depmode=gcc3 /bin/sh ../depcomp \
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I. -I.. -I../build -I../lib -I../rpmdb
-I../rpmio -I../popt -I../file -I../zlib -I../misc    -O2 -march=i386 -mcpu=i686
-g -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_REENTRANT -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wno-char-subscripts -c `test -f 'debugedit.c' || echo
debugedit.c:36:18: gelf.h: No such file or directory
debugedit.c:37:19: dwarf.h: No such file or directory
debugedit.c:53: parse error before "Elf"
debugedit.c:53: warning: no semicolon at end of struct or union
debugedit.c:54: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of `ehdr'
debugedit.c:54: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
debugedit.c:55: parse error before '*' token
<and so on for many many lines>

Present un-stated Build-requirements include doxygen, and the elfutils-devel

raw hide: rpm-4.2-0.68.src.rpm

two approaches exist:  BuildRequire them, or 

ifdef around the relevant sub-packages ... if not present.

It seems that the hope would be that, for non-i386 arches, rpm can build enough
of itself to bet rpm-build, so one can bootstrap a rebuild of the toolchain
needed to build:

gcc, binutils,  glibc, rpm itself, and hopefully to kernel

[herrold@dhcp249 SPECS]$ grep -i ^Build rpm.spec
BuildRequires: elfutils-libelf
BuildRequires: zlib-devel
BuildRequires: bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2
BuildRequires: python-devel >= %{with_python_version}
[herrold@dhcp249 SPECS]$

I am thinking here also of the trans-port-int for Sparc -- elfutils-devel is
probably simply not applicable off ix86 ... this leans to the ifdef extension

Dunno -- the RPM .spec file is already a work of art -- ...
Comment 1 R P Herrold 2003-02-16 21:38:21 EST
adding it. of course, I get:

Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
Processing files: rpm-debuginfo-4.2-0.68
Provides: _rpmdb.so.debug libpopt.so.0.0.0.debug librpm-4.2.so.debug
librpmbuild-4.2.so.debug librpmdb-4.2.so.debug librpmio-4.2.so.debug
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/rpm-root
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/SRPMS/rpm-4.2-0.68.src.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/rpm-4.2-0.68.i386.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/rpm-devel-4.2-0.68.i386.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/rpm-build-4.2-0.68.i386.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/rpm-python-4.2-0.68.i386.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/popt-1.8-0.68.i386.rpm
Wrote: /home/herrold/redhat/RPMS/i386/rpm-debuginfo-4.2-0.68.i386.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.32281
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/herrold/redhat/BUILD
+ cd rpm-4.2
+ rm -rf /var/tmp/rpm-root
+ exit 0
[herrold@dhcp249 SPECS]$
Comment 2 R P Herrold 2003-02-16 21:50:26 EST
doing this for:

Comment 3 R P Herrold 2003-02-18 12:13:04 EST
This bug may be a dupe of: 81190 -- but with the off x86 aspect, is probably not 

... As the 'not a BuildRequire' route is stated, it would seem that either
ifdef'ing around arch dependent stuff in the .spec file, or perhaps in the build
setup ./configure has to happen?
Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2003-02-20 11:20:15 EST
The right fix is to get debugedit functionality included
in elfutils.

Deferred until then, probably not soon.

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