On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:42:34PM +0100, 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.
Unrelated to your question, but FWIW PatchNNN is not required, all
patches can be merely "Patch: filename" and they'll get applied
in the order they are listed in the spec.
> 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)?
Rather than fixing the root cause, if you want a relatively simple
workaround still, you could merely move the conditional into the
patch hack:
if test $(uname -m) == "riscv64"
then
...autoconf patch stuff...
fi
or something along those lines </hand-waving-suggestion>
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
_______________________________________________
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
