Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stapitrace - user space instruction trace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445224 ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx 2008-06-23 22:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > > > > package meets naming and versioning guidelines. > > > > package builds in mock: > > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=664952&name=build.log > I think the problem in the build was because configure didn't really work. > What kind OS was on your test machine? This was an official Fedora rawhide builder. > I think the crux of the problem is in > the output from configure: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CPU = powerpc64, OS = linux-gnu, Vendor = redhat, HostType = powerpc64 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ERROR: Platform powerpc64 not yet supported > > On the fedora9 ppc machine I tried I got: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CPU = powerpc64, OS = linux-gnu, Vendor = redhat, HostType = powerpc > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > So, it is HostType=powerpc vs HostType=powerpc64. On my machine I don't get > this configuration error. > > What does config.guess return on your machine? There were some changes in rawhide recently on this. I'll see if I can dig up the email thread. > On my Fedora9 ppc machine I get: > powerpc64-redhat-linux-gnu > > which is the same thing I see in a RHEL5.2 ppc machine. RHEL 5.x has no bearing here. It's quite old compared to Fedora. > If you think that the configure script should be able to handle the > HostType=powerpc64, I can go ahead and patch the configure.in. That might have been the solution, but I'll check. > > > > package installs properly. (couldn't check) > > > > debuginfo package looks complete. (couldn't check) > > > > final provides and requires are sane (couldn't check) > > > > if shared libraries are present, make sure ldconfig is run > What does this mean by "couldn't check"? The package didn't build, so I couldn't check those items. Looking at the spec file, I don't expect any issues. > I was unable to do hardly any testing > on the fedora9 machine because I couldn't find compatible pieces like > binutils-devel since my machine is in ABAT. I spent about a week some time ago > trying to get Fedora9-alpha installed from CDs on a ppc machine but never could > get it to work. Fedora 9 has been released for a month now. Try using the Gold release, as Alpha is very old and is known to have bugs. > > That, and the naming. See below. > > > What is the naming issue? Sorry, I should have been more clear. I included the Release and Version fields here. If you do a CVS snapshot package, you'll need to fixup the Release and Version fields appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review