On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:31 PM Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the build root > > Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive > Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:22 Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> * Richard W. M. Jones: >> >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to >> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not >> >> cover all cases. >> > >> > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working >> > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. >> >> The symbolic link isn't in the buildroot. If shared objects are listed >> explicitly in %files (as some guidelines recommend) and upstream >> hard-codes the ABI directory names for installation purposes, the build >> fails. >> >> Setting %_libdir to /usr/lib64/lp64d instead might work. Fixing >> upstream to honor --libdir=/usr/lib64 in ./configure might be another >> option. >> We never patched the filesystem package to properly introduce the symlink. It's extremely rare that it wouldn't be available in buildroot, but it does happen. Cheers, david -- _______________________________________________ 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
