On 12/30/2016 02:32 PM, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
On 12/30/2016 01:44 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 12/30/2016 12:49 PM, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
Hi guys,
My latest build [1] of dnsdist failed on ppc64, because libatomic is not
in the default buildroot there, as opposed to all the other arches.
Is this intentional? Should I just add libatomic as a BR?
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17115104
dnsdist-1.1.0/m4/pdns_check_os.m4 has this:
case "$host" in
mips*)
LDFLAGS="-latomic $LDFLAGS"
;;
powerpc*)
LDFLAGS="-latomic $LDFLAGS"
;;
esac
If you link against libatomic explicitly, you need to specify a
suitable build dependency.
(If the dependency on libatomic is introduced by a build dependency,
that build dependency would in turn have to depend on libatomic, and
not your package.)
Understood, but why do the aarch64, armv7hl, i686 and ppc64le buildroot
have this by default, but not ppc64?
On i686, it is an incidental dependency of the gcc package. It seems to
come from the RPM dependency generator, but I don't quite grasp the
reason for it. Perhaps the symbolic link is sufficient?
On x86_64, there isn't a symbolic link, and a linker script is used
instead. I don't think the RPM dependency generator looks at linker
scripts at all.
Whether Requires: gcc should bring in support for linking against
libatomic is debatable. We had a similar discussion about libasan, I think.
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
