On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:31 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 09:04 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> - whether the build-sys macros are being merged into redhat-rpm-config > >>> doesn't matter much, because redhat-rpm-config already kills rpmbuild > >>> "--target" > >> Huh? Worked just fine for me a few days ago to build i686 kernel rpms on > >> an x86_64 host, using only the following: > >> > >> $ setarch i386 rpmbuild -bb --target i686 kernel-2.6.spec > > Now, build for a non-rh target or an incompatible arch and examine % > > _host, %_build, %_target and other %values (eg. CC, or $*FLAGS) > > It seems a bit unreasonable to expect us to support building something > like solaris sparc rpms on linux i386... I don't expect Fedora to support such endeavors, but I do think I can expect Fedora/RH not to interfere (In a nutshell, all this can be subsumed as redhat-rpm-config breaks "rpmbuild --target"). Fact is, I am using rpm/rpmbuild to cross-build packages for other OSs but Fedora. rpmbuild (modulo bugs) supports it, but redhat-rpm-config interferes. > Or really, building any non-rh > or incompatible arch target. Even in the non-rh but still linux and a > compatible arch case, a build chroot makes a lot more sense to me. > Perhaps I don't fully understand what it is you're trying to accomplish. > > >> Are you referring to the fact you have to make a call to setarch to > >> get > >> it to fully do the right thing? > > Well, the fact you have to apply setarch is a bug. I should have said "IMO" ;) > I think that's a valid concern. > > But ... this is not related to what I am referring to: > > The more exotic the target are, the more brokenness you'll encounter. > > > > E.g. try to implement custom /usr/lib/rpm/<target>/macros for an exotic > > target ... redhat-rpm-config causes this not to be used. rpm -e > > redhat-rpm-config magically makes this work ... (And this is only the > > tip of the iceberg :( ). > > Like you said, "the more exotic..." I think you're trying to do some > things that the vast majority of users don't and shouldn't do. That's the problem "99%" of users don't do ... has led to bugs interfering with the remaining "1%". > Sounds > like you have a work-around already too. Well, I am working on it. So far my work around is to ban redhat-rpm-config from the system I am using to build these rpms. > Not to say that if it isn't > straight-forward enough we shouldn't fix up redhat-rpm-config to play > nice in this situation, but I don't think its something that is going to > be high-priority on most people's todo list. Of cause, I don't expect "immediate" reaction. Fact is, I am complaining about this for years, but NOTHING has happened on RH's part. Instead I am seeing things getting gradually worser with each Fedora release. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
