Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday 16 October 2006 03:04, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Yesterday I tried to build i386 rpms on my x86_64 using the new >> multilib-devel packages instead of resorting to an i386 chroot. >> >> Although we have come a long way to making this possible there are still >> a few issues which makes doing this very hard: >> >> 1) gcc ignores setarch >> ====================== >> >> "gcc -o hello helloworld.c", creates an x86_64 elf file on my x86_64 >> system as expected however, "setarch i386 gcc -o hello helloworld.c" >> also creates an x86_64 elf file instead of an i386 one, to get an i386 >> one I must do: "gcc -m32 -o hello helloworld.c". >> >> This is unfortunate, because even though rpmbuild adds -m32 to the >> *FLAGS environment variables things still don't for many packages, >> because they for example often ignore LDFLAGS, thus not specifying -m32 >> when linking, causing things to fail. > Make sure you do not have a /etc/rpm/platform file if you intend to build > i386 on x86_64 it will mess some things up. > Thanks for responding, but I don't see how /etc/rpm/platform has anything todo with problem nr 1) I've described as that only involves gcc not rpmbuild. >> 2) rpmbuild ignores setarch >> =========================== >> >> "setarch i386 rpmbuild -bb foo.spec" Still tries to build an x86_64 foo, >> I know "rpmbuild --target i386" works better but still has issues, for >> example libdir is still set to /usr/lib64, this is already in bugzilla. >> >> I however still believe that rpmbuild should change its default build >> target when using setarch and should call setarch itself when called >> with --target, shall I BZ this? > Again due to /etc/rpm/platform > Okay, this may be true, I indeed have an /etc/rpm/platform, and it is not owned by any package, still I didn't put it there I'll try removing it. >> 4) rpmbuild lets x86_64 packages satisfy BR's when building for i386 >> ==================================================================== >> >> The subject says most of it, when doing an rpmbuild --target=i386 I >> don't want libXt-devel.x86_64 to satisfy a BR: libXt-devel . >> >> I know things aren't that easy because with something like BR: >> desktop-file-utils, the x86_64 version will do fine. >> >> Suggestion: make rpmbuild check the arch of BR's who's name ends with >> -devel. >> >> This will still have a few exceptions, but will be a big improvement in >> general. BZ? > again due to /etc/rpm/platform it overrides some of rpms logic and it > thinks its building x86_64 always > Erm, please read properly before commenting, having any arch of libXt-devel installed will currently make rpmbuild happy with regards to a BR: libXt-devel, no matter what platform is being build. >> 5) xxx-devel.arch should require xxx.arch not just xxx >> ====================================================== >> >> When I install libXt-devel.i386 I expect it to drag in libXt.i386 and >> not to be happy with the already installed libXt.x86_64 . >> > possibly due to the same issue. > Nope, it does the same too drag in i386 packages to resolve x86_64 -devel packages deps. To fix this we need a way to add the arch to deps, because currently deps don't have archs. Regards, Hans -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
