Rex Dieter wrote:
> Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>
>> On ARM, the preprocessor symbol __arm__ is defined, and %{_arch} is
>> set to 'arm', so something like this will work:
>>
>> #if defined(__i386__)
>> #include "blkid_types-i386.h"
>> +#elif defined(__arm__)
>> +#include "blkid_types-arm.h"
>> #elif defined(__ia64__)
>> #include "blkid_types-ia64.h"
>> #elif defined(__powerpc64__)
>>
>> If you have such a construct in your package, please consider adding
>> the relevant __arm__ bits.
>
> Is arm even capable of multilib'ing? If not, why even bother with hacks
> like this?
Maybe consistency so the specfile doesn't have to differentiate? I dunno.
It seems like if this is the preferred way to handle this, something like
%multilib_wrap(headerfile)
would be handy in the rpm macros somewhere, if possible, and it could do
the right things for the right arches...
-Eric
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
