[CentOS-devel] there's something happened between kernel 2.6.28-128.1.1 and 2.6.18-128.1.6 compilation

Farkas Levente lfarkas at lfarkas.org
Mon Apr 20 13:46:25 UTC 2009


Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> 
>> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>> In the mean time if someone wants to go ahead and work out why that
>>> with_headers got undefined, please go ahead and let us know whats  
>>> going on.
>> A very brief look at the spec file seems to show that its a bit  
>> random,
>> depending on which arch the package is being built for the  
>> with_headers
>> can go either way.
>>
>> Why a src.rpm should be affected by required binary output based on
>> arch, is something that needs investigating - however instinct tells  
>> me
>> its a bug in the spec itself. Ideally, a src.rpm should be identical
>> generated on any arch with any given set of '--defines'.
>>
> 
> SRPM's are produced on a machine with an arch, and so results can/will  
> vary.
> 
> Your instinct is correct.
> 
> But the kernel.spec has always been hugely complicated.

Jeff as you're the rpm developer the question is:
- it's kernel bug (eg. kernel's spec is wrong)
- it's an rpm bug (rpm generate wrong require list)
- it's a build system bug (the build system setup faulty)
- or it's not a bug at all this should have to be in this way if the
src.rpm generated on i386 arch?

if you said the srpms are arch dependent then the whole setup (rhel,
centos, dag and all repos) where there is only one dir for srpms for all
dir is wrong. or ...?
thanks.

-- 
  Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list