Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452211 --- Comment #8 from Aidan Delaney <a.j.delaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-25 04:27:07 EDT --- Jan, Do you mean to (a) define a new %package spu target in binutils.spec or (b) to use the binutils.src.rpm as Source0 in the spu-binutils.spec? I don't believe (a) is a good option as any upstream stability issues in SPU could delay the release of new packages for more popular architectures such as i386 etc... I've done some initial hacking on (b) trying to have spu-binutils.spec using binutils%{version}.src.rpm as Source0. It appears that RPM isn't designed for such build configurations as, for example, %setup does not know about .src.rpm files. One has to manually setup the binutils.src.rpm and then rpmbuild --bc binutils.spec and finally use the %install and %files directives of spu-binutils.spec to create the spu-binutils.rpm. It appears, to me, that the only advantage of this approach is to maintain spu-binutils.spec as having the same binutils version as binutils.spec. This leaves us in the same position as (a) as we may sometimes need to lag behind the version of binutils built by binutils.spec. Overall, I think Jochen's approach is the most straightforward and uses conventions established by other cross toolsets. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review