On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:31:45 PM Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote:
> On 03/29/2013 11:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > What was the package?
> GMP with configure 2.69 (apparently). Autoreconf -fi in use for a long time.
>
> Thank you for the confirmation. What is the right course of action
> expected from every affected packager? Add autoreconf -vfi and defer
> contacting upstream until we are competent?
I would *not* contact upstream, really. This big bunch of bugzillas was
filled too early imo. I would still try to improve status of all
bugzillas just for people who did not anything and who not reading this
thread. Trying to suggest upstream to upgrade to autoconf 2.69 may really
look shamefully. A lot of affected packages is not dependant on autoconf..
Running autoreconf (with -fi! which was not mentioned in original
bugreports) will probably work (in a case that enough up2date automake is
installed on the system) - but there is important to say that not only the
files config.{guess,sub} will be replaced then.
Some quick and dirty workaround is possible for rpm. Just for aarch64
architecture try to find config.guess/config.sub files in package and
replace them with current files packaged in automake. This is definitely
less work than patch every single package.
As a long term solution I would like to see is (a) the gnuconfig [1]
package in fedora and (b) the upstream config.guess/config.sub files to be
able to ask the system wide config.guess/config.sub files whether they are
newer and run them instead in that case. I will try to discuss this with
upstream (if nobody started to talk on this still) and package gnuconfig
in fedora.
[1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/config.git/tree/
Links worth to read:
[2] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2013-03/msg00272.html
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926610
Pavel
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
