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
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
and 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 multitude
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 many
On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 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
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com 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
On 17 June 2013 09:04, Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 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,
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 dpkg some
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 from %
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:04:02 +0200
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200
Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
we had updated dpkg some major
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com 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
On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com 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 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 multitude
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 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
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 delegates the
On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 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
On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 08:43 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com 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
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 bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
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 with a
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 bjoern.es...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep
should be mandatory in packages using autotools.
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
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
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us 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
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 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 br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:14:52 -0500,
Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
24 matches
Mail list logo
