On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:04:27 -0400, Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip) wrote:
Author: kanarip
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/revisor/F-7 In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10220/F-7
Modified Files: revisor.spec sources Log Message: 2.0.3.12-2
-BuildArch: noarch +BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
You seem to be confused about why your "%ifnarch" usage in the spec doesn't work. It is because you build "noarch", where the arch doesn't matter. It is an arch-independent build. Unless the compose tool is broken, it would still ship the noarch build for ppc/ppc64. Apparently, you now want to hack the buildarch parameter and create multiple builds of the package: noarch with Requires livecd-tools, and arch-specific ppc/ppc64 without Requires livecd-tools.
This is something that has been a topic before. A "noarch" package which depends on arch-specific packages, which are not available for all arches, cannot really be noarch or should use ExcludeArch properly (which is another ugly hack). The only alternative with current RPM is to not build "noarch". Then you can get your ifarch/ifnarch to work.
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 19:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:04:27 -0400, Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip) wrote:
Author: kanarip
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/revisor/F-7 In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10220/F-7
Modified Files: revisor.spec sources Log Message: 2.0.3.12-2
-BuildArch: noarch +BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
You seem to be confused about why your "%ifnarch" usage in the spec doesn't work. It is because you build "noarch", where the arch doesn't matter. It is an arch-independent build. Unless the compose tool is broken, it would still ship the noarch build for ppc/ppc64. Apparently, you now want to hack the buildarch parameter and create multiple builds of the package: noarch with Requires livecd-tools, and arch-specific ppc/ppc64 without Requires livecd-tools.
This is something that has been a topic before. A "noarch" package which depends on arch-specific packages, which are not available for all arches, cannot really be noarch or should use ExcludeArch properly (which is another ugly hack). The only alternative with current RPM is to not build "noarch". Then you can get your ifarch/ifnarch to work.
As an aside, why doesn't livecd-tools work on ppc/ppc64? Yaboot foo?
josh
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
As an aside, why doesn't livecd-tools work on ppc/ppc64? Yaboot foo?
It's a matter of cleanly merging in the changes to abstract out the arch-dependent bits (which ends up being the bootloader and mkisofs invocation). dwmw2 sent a patch but given where we were in the F7 cycle, it wasn't a good time to merge it and risk destabilizing the tool.
Will get to it pre-test1, just not the thing that needs the most runway that I'm looking at for F8.
Jeremy
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 13:12 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
As an aside, why doesn't livecd-tools work on ppc/ppc64? Yaboot foo?
It's a matter of cleanly merging in the changes to abstract out the arch-dependent bits (which ends up being the bootloader and mkisofs invocation). dwmw2 sent a patch but given where we were in the F7 cycle, it wasn't a good time to merge it and risk destabilizing the tool.
Will get to it pre-test1, just not the thing that needs the most runway that I'm looking at for F8.
Want help? Have ppc/ppc64, will test. :)
josh
On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:04:09 Michael Schwendt wrote:
You seem to be confused about why your "%ifnarch" usage in the spec doesn't work. It is because you build "noarch", where the arch doesn't matter. It is an arch-independent build. Unless the compose tool is broken, it would still ship the noarch build for ppc/ppc64.
<snip>
This is something that has been a topic before. A "noarch" package which depends on arch-specific packages, which are not available for all arches, cannot really be noarch or should use ExcludeArch properly (which is another ugly hack).
Just to clarify, the (F7+ at least, not sure about Extras) compose tools do honor Exclude/ExclusiveArch on noarch packages.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:14:16 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:04:09 Michael Schwendt wrote:
You seem to be confused about why your "%ifnarch" usage in the spec doesn't work. It is because you build "noarch", where the arch doesn't matter. It is an arch-independent build. Unless the compose tool is broken, it would still ship the noarch build for ppc/ppc64.
<snip>
This is something that has been a topic before. A "noarch" package which depends on arch-specific packages, which are not available for all arches, cannot really be noarch or should use ExcludeArch properly (which is another ugly hack).
Just to clarify, the (F7+ at least, not sure about Extras) compose tools do honor Exclude/ExclusiveArch on noarch packages.
Extras supports ExcludeArch for noarch src.rpms, too, but that's not the topic here. Re-read the quote. The spec does
BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
without ExcludeArch. That would publish the noarch build for ppc/ppc64, too, wouldn't it?
On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:32:43 Michael Schwendt wrote:
Extras supports ExcludeArch for noarch src.rpms, too, but that's not the topic here. Re-read the quote. The spec does
BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
without ExcludeArch. That would publish the noarch build for ppc/ppc64, too, wouldn't it?
Yes it would, and that's not what I was posting about. I just wanted to clarify what the compose tools actually supported as it wasn't clear (to me) from your email.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:46:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 13:32:43 Michael Schwendt wrote:
Extras supports ExcludeArch for noarch src.rpms, too, but that's not the topic here. Re-read the quote. The spec does
BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
without ExcludeArch. That would publish the noarch build for ppc/ppc64, too, wouldn't it?
Yes it would, and that's not what I was posting about. I just wanted to clarify what the compose tools actually supported as it wasn't clear (to me) from your email.
Well, my mail specifically mentioned "ExcludeArch" as one solution, albeit called it "another ugly hack" [*].
Btw, revisor previously had used ExcludeArch. The context of my mail is the most recent revisor.spec changeset.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 12:04:27 -0400, Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip) wrote:
Author: kanarip
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/revisor/F-7 In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10220/F-7
Modified Files: revisor.spec sources Log Message: 2.0.3.12-2
-BuildArch: noarch +BuildArch: noarch ppc ppc64
You seem to be confused about why your "%ifnarch" usage in the spec doesn't work. It is because you build "noarch", where the arch doesn't matter. It is an arch-independent build. Unless the compose tool is broken, it would still ship the noarch build for ppc/ppc64. Apparently, you now want to hack the buildarch parameter and create multiple builds of the package: noarch with Requires livecd-tools, and arch-specific ppc/ppc64 without Requires livecd-tools.
This is something that has been a topic before. A "noarch" package which depends on arch-specific packages, which are not available for all arches, cannot really be noarch or should use ExcludeArch properly (which is another ugly hack). The only alternative with current RPM is to not build "noarch". Then you can get your ifarch/ifnarch to work.
Thanks, that figures. ExcludeArch is back in, %if(n)arch magic is out.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip