On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Monday, 05 September 2022 at 21:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why -- > > breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is > > it correct to do: > > > > %ifnarch riscv64 > > Patch123: downstream.patch > > %endif > > > > given that the package uses %autosetup and therefore doesn't have > > explicit %patch lines. > > > > I think this means that if I build the SRPM on riscv64 then the > > downstream patch wouldn't be included, meaning that SRPM would then > > fail to build on other arches. In this particular case that doesn't > > matter, but it feels wrong. Is there a recommended way to do this > > (apart from fixing the patch)? > > Change %autosetup to plain %setup and apply the patch conditionally > instead of conditionally including it in the SRPM. There are 26 patches so that's a bit of a PITA. Is there not an easier way? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests. http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
