On Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:16:46 pm Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Id like to get some feedback on the patches that i'm proposing for F-13.
> > quite a few packages that need to deal with differences between
> > 32bit/64bit or multilib arches have defines for the appropriate arches.
> > sometimes incomplete since they don't include secondary arches.
> >
> > I wanted to get some feedback. and see if there are other cases we should
> > add.
>
> +%multilib32 sparc sparcv8 sparcv9 sparcv9v ppc s390
> +%multilib64 x86_64 sparc64 sparc64v ppc64 s390x
>
> Remind me what the asymmetry is for here? Why is %{ix86} not in
> %{multilib32} ?
>
> In general I'd kind of prefer to see headers modified to use gcc's
> predefines for __SIZEOF_LONG__ and friends instead, but I'll take what I
> can get.
it should be the attached patch. the initial one was based on what gcc does
in its spec. it treats %{ix86} as not being multilib.
+%multilib32 %{ix86} %{sparc32} ppc s390
+%multilib64 x86_64 %{sparc64} ppc64 s390x
--- redhat-rpm-config-9.0.3-orig/macros 2009-10-27 10:18:01.000000000 -0500
+++ redhat-rpm-config-9.0.3/macros 2009-10-27 12:14:24.000000000 -0500
@@ -277,3 +277,7 @@
%global __find_requires /bin/sh -c "%{?__filter_req_cmd} %{__deploop R} %{?__filter_from_req}" \
}
+#==============================================================================
+# Set up multilib arch definitions
+%multilib32 sparc sparcv8 sparcv9 sparcv9v ppc s390
+%multilib64 x86_64 sparc64 sparc64v ppc64 s390x
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
