config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not
support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)
On Mon, 17 Jun, 2013 at 15:29:39 GMT, Michael Schwendt wrote:
One problem with that is, one cannot "blindly" run autoreconf -fi and
expect it to be 100% compatible with the mu
and their
upstream) is good.
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-Original Message-
From: Ben Boeckel [maths...@gmail.com]
Received: Thursday, 20 Jun 2013, 7:53
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg
On Mon, 17 Jun, 2013 at 15:29:39 GMT, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> One problem with that is, one cannot "blindly" run autoreconf -fi and
> expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitude of Autotools' based
> projects. Typically one will need to update the configure script, m4
> macros as well as M
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:37:19 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> Let me be more specific:
> * If upstream uses a modern autotools, than "autoreconf" should be preferred
> (IMO).
> * If not, we should advise them to modernize (and if we can, try to help
> them).
>
IIRC, that has been suggested in the m
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote:
> >> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
> >> should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely
On Monday 17 June 2013 22:58:53 Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
> > ... I'd rather not spend the small amount of time I can devote to
> > open source software work messing with a configure script just because
> > somebody thinks they should be able to run autoreconf wi
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote:
> >> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
> >> should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 08:43 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote:
> > I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
> > should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
> > lots of possible problems caused by
On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
If I have some other reason for needing to touch the con
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 11:39 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> In the Fedora spirit of "everything buildable from clean sources", I
> think
> the "autoreconf" solution should be globally adopted (regardless of
> aarch64):
> * It doesn't use generated files as input to the build process.
> * It delegate
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
> obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
If I have some other reason for needing to touch the configure script,
then sure. (In fact, I
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:59:06 +0200, Björn Esser wrote:
> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
> should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
One problem with that is, one cannot "blindly" run autoreconf -fi and
expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitu
On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
lots of possible problems caused by just injecting config.{gu
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote:
> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
> should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid
> lots of possible problems caused by just injecting config.{guess,sub} by
> %configure.
That would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:04:02 +0200
Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200
> Simone Caronni wrote:
>
> > On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I
> > > know
Am Montag, den 17.06.2013, 11:39 +0300 schrieb Oron Peled:
> On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
> >
> > "could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically fro
On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
>
> "could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically from %
> configure", so no need update it anymore ?
>
> we had updated d
On 17 June 2013 09:04, Dan Horák wrote:
> the fedora-packager package provides wrappers for the koji command for
> all secondary architectures in Fedora in the form ${arch}-koji, where
> arch can be arm, ppc and s390, so you can use
>
> arm-koji build --scratch f19 your.src.rpm
>
Oh, thanks, I d
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200
Simone Caronni wrote:
> On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I know
> > if dpkg is now ready for aarch64 ?
> >
>
> I've discovered you can trigger builds for the ARM Koji instance with
>
On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I know if
> dpkg is now ready for aarch64 ?
>
I've discovered you can trigger builds for the ARM Koji instance with your
account:
koji --server=http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub bui
Hi,
I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1
"could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically from %
configure", so no need update it anymore ?
we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I know if
dpkg is now
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 03/23/2013 04:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> Eventually there will be hardware available but I'm not sure when
>> that will be as there's not been anything publicly announced.
On 03/23/2013 04:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Eventually there will be hardware available but I'm not sure when
> that will be as there's not been anything publicly announced.
> Ultimately we're very much in the prep stages for a mass re
On 03/23/2013 06:12 PM, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> ARM deprecate endian switching in ARMv7+ application (server) profiles. It is
> possible to do big endian but with external hardware assistance. We will be
> an LP64 little endian architecture with a relaxed memory model. Ping me with
> questions
On 03/23/2013 10:14 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> Yesterday a bunch of bugs were opened up regarding aarch64 support in
> some packages. I'd like to do my part in fixing these, but is there a
> way to actually run test builds?
As Peter says, there will be an updated F19-ish filesystem image soon.
Th
eived: Saturday, 23 Mar 2013, 17:37
To: Development discussions related to Fedora [devel@lists.fedoraproject.org]
Subject: Re: aarch64 bugs
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 07:35:08PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Do you know what proc
(www.nitrodesk.com)
-Original Message-
From: Peter Robinson [pbrobin...@gmail.com]
Received: Saturday, 23 Mar 2013, 15:35
To: Development discussions related to Fedora [devel@lists.fedoraproject.org]
Subject: Re: aarch64 bugs
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 07:35:08PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Do you know what processor features ('flags') will be available in the
> > first shipping hardware?
>
> Nope, although I will find out, what particular bits do you need
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 03:12:13PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
>> > Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yesterday a bunch of bugs w
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 03:12:13PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
> > Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> >>
> >> Yesterday a bunch of bugs were opened up regarding aarch64 support in
> >> some packages. I'd
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
> Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday a bunch of bugs were opened up regarding aarch64 support in
>> some packages. I'd like to do my part in fixing these, but is there a
>> way to actually run t
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
Yesterday a bunch of bugs were opened up regarding aarch64 support in
some packages. I'd like to do my part in fixing these, but is there a
way to actually run test builds? I know that there's ARM support in
the works, but I haven'
Yesterday a bunch of bugs were opened up regarding aarch64 support in
some packages. I'd like to do my part in fixing these, but is there a
way to actually run test builds? I know that there's ARM support in
the works, but I haven't really kept up with the details.
--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailin
33 matches
Mail list logo
