[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-buildsys-list
Subject:    Re: sparc weirdness
From:       Dennis Gilmore <dennis () ausil ! us>
Date:       2006-08-18 20:25:55
Message-ID: 200608181525.55846.dennis () ausil ! us
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 18 August 2006 14:05, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 18 August 2006 14:48, Clark Williams wrote:
> > If I'm correct here, the problem is that you need both 32-bit and 64-bit
> > glibc's in the same chroot to build gcc for a sparc. I looked on a
> > x86_64 FC5 system and it has two glibc-2.4-8 packages, but if you list
> > them both, one is the 64 bit version and the other is the 32-bit
> > version. This implies to me that they were both "installed" as opposed
> > to "updated". I can't really see an easy way to force mock/yum to do
> > this, so I think the only way will be multiple invocations of mock and
> > rpm. Something like:
>
> We handle this at Red Hat by having a file buildrequirement on a file that
> is provided by the 32bit glibc, as well as a buildrequirement on just
> glibc. This way no matter what arch you're on, you'll get the 32bit glibc. 
> Now, at Red Hat we had to create a fake 'glibc32' package that is built
> x86_64 so that it is available in the x86_64 repo.  Perhaps you can do the
> same for sparc?
perhaps,  but it needs to be the other way around.  that is i need the 64 bit 
glibc in a 32bit chroot to build gcc.   so i guess i need to build a 
glibc64 'fake' package  gcc has a BuildRequires 
 /lib64/libc.so.6 /usr/lib64/libc.so so its file based 

I will work out what i need to do for the glibc64 package

Dennis

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]