Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:40 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why a package that built for F8 and F9 failed
on Rawhide. Here are the logs for the failed Rawhide bid:
Any suggestions what's going on here?
Dunno, but I came across this yesterday too. A package that built
everywhere apart from ppc64 (and had built previously on F9) failed on
ppc64:
The culprit is upstreams shipping outdated config.guess/config.sub's.
AFAICT, until recently, rpmbuild replaced config.guess/config.sub during
builts, and now has been changed to use the original files upstreams
ship.
Thanks for the info. I see the history behind this in
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/211069 and understand why it was done. It's
easily enough fixed for ppc64 in my (ancient) package, though I suspect
I'm going to need to fix it again for the various secondary
architectures at some point.
Paul.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
