On 02/03/2010 02:20 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> On 02/03/2010 10:05 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: >>> >>>> Panu Matilainen (pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>>>>> %{_host} is set by the rpm package in the macros file, %{_build} >>>>>> defaults >>>>>> to the value of %{_host}. %{_target_platform} comes from --target on >>>>>> the command line, plus the usual vendor/OS bits >>>>>> >>>>>> --target is what is set by rpm/mock. I think it defaults to %{_host} >>>>>> if it's not otherwise specified, but we specify it when building >>>>>> for i686, >>>>>> as we could theoretically still build i386 packages. >>>>> >>>>> Yup, and all wonderfully mixed up - rpm's idea of --target is >>>>> something >>>>> completely different from what auto*foo from this century thinks >>>>> of it. >>>>> Dunno if it ever was really valid but certainly not anymore. >>>>> >>>>> rpm>= 4.8.0 no longer sets the --target on %configure but that's been >>>>> masked by the redhat-rpm-config version of %configure. That's been >>>>> fixed >>>>> too as of today. >>>> >>>> Is either %_host or %_build set based on --target? >>> >>> No... as there's no correct way to map rpm's --target to autotools >>> expectations. >> >> There is: rpm's --target is autoconf's --host > > Yes, that's what would be the clean mapping. But as I said in the > latter part (which you cut out here): I am aware about these issue. As you might recall, I am cross-building rpms and canadian crossbuilding rpms for many years. The rpm-specs I am using for this are cluttered with clutches to work around rpm's / redhat-rpm-config's brokeness wrt. rpm's --target handling ;) > much/most of the time rpm's --target is used to specify > sub-architecture optimization levels (--target i686 on i386 or > --target i686 on x86_64) which aren't cross-compiles. Just mapping > rpm's --target to autoconf --host causes autoconf to complain in these > situations. Have a closer look: It only complains about bogus arguments being used. As long as you manage to derive CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS/CXXFLAGS etc. from rpm's --target, these autoconf checks currently fall back to what you expect. > > I dont feel quite confortable to changing it to something that causes > "this will not be supported in future" and other warnings. > Well, there are several work arounds: a) Not using any of --build or --host unless --target is passed to rpm This would be the ultimate solution . b) Explicitly pass --build="rpm's target" == --host == "rpm's target". This suppresses the configure check because autoconf presumes the invoker to "know what he does". Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel