On 11/30/2010 02:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely 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. That's right, and we do it that way to make sure we have only one set of 32-bit libraries. Andrew.
