Many thanks!

--Greg

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:26 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com> wrote:
On 02. 10. 20 20:15, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 10. 20 20:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Greg Hellings <greg.hellings@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I tried to build
>>> RC3 today, but the build failed on the final steps. My package includes a
>>> Python wrapper with Swig and the following file:
>>>
>>> %{python3_sitearch}/_Sword.cpython-%{python3_version_nodots}*-%{_arch}-linux-gnu*.so
>>>
>>>
>>> %{_arch} is "ppc64le" as expected. But today, koji can't find the file.
>>> Looking through the logs[0] I see this line in the install step:
>>>
>>> copying
>>> build/lib.linux-ppc64le-3.9/_Sword.cpython-39-powerpc64le-linux-gnu.so ->
>>> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/sword-1.9.0RC3-1.fc34.ppc64le/usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages
>>>
>>>
>>> So now the generated file is "powerpc64le", but %{_arch} is still ppc64le.
>>> That .so file gets generated and built during a "python setup.py
>>> build/install" process. I'm not naming that file anywhere in the spec. So has
>>> the naming scheme intentionally changed for Python bindings? Or is this a bug
>>> that I should escalate and report somewhere? Upstream in the library I'm
>>> packaging? Upstream in Fedora? Python?
>>>
>>
>> This change is from this Fedora 34 Change:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_Upstream_Architecture_Names
>>
>> There are new macros defined for this, indicated here:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_Upstream_Architecture_Names#New_Macros
>>
>
> That reminded me I wanted to send some PRs for this.
>
> Thanks.
>

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sword/pull-request/4

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok