On 30 November 2010 14:33, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is still off-topic for this list... > > On 30 November 2010 14:19, Mr Dash Four wrote: >> >> There is no mismatch - just common sense. The same common sense which tells >> me that whoever created gcc.spec need to have a good hard look at themselves >> as the amount of flexibility which it gives to developers like myself is >> grand total of zero, let alone that it does NOT do the job it is designed to >> do - build GCC. > > The job it's designed to do is build GCC RPMs *for Fedora* in order to > distribute RPMs for Fedora. It's not necessarily meant for end users > to rebuild packages that they can just install from a repo (because > we've already established you didn't really need to build from source > anyway, you just needed to install some additional packages - and in > fact building from source *still* doesn't do what you want - even more > reason to just install those additional packages and be done with it.) > > Andrew said "But that's not what it's supposed to do. The 32-bit > libraries are built as part of the 32-bit distro." > IIUC to get the i686 packages you need to build on i686. Rightly or > wrongly, building on x86_64 gets you the 64bit packages, and the 32bit > ones come from a separate repo that was built for i686, on i686. (I > think the glibc rpm spec file might behave the same way.) > > You want the spec file to be useful for a different use case, which > while reasonable, may not be the use case the spec file was actually > written for. That doesn't mean the spec file is broken, it just means > your expectations don't match what the spec file was written to do. And just to be super clear, if all you want to do is build GCC (as opposed to produce RPMs for a distro) then you can do it easily, without using rpmbuild, by following the default GCC installation instructions.
