rpms/cvsup/devel cvsup-ppc.patch, NONE, 1.1 ezm3-1.2-PPC-setjmp-bootstrap.patch, NONE, 1.1 ezm3-1.2-PPC-setjmp.patch, NONE, 1.1 ezm3-1.2-ppc-jmpbufsize.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 cvsup.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.2, 1.3

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Sonntag, den 13.02.2005, 12:22 +0000 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 13:21 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >Any specific reason why you exclude x86_64 again? 
> >
> >Yes, i know that i does not build ATM -- I'm looking into it...
> 
> Purely an accident; sorry.

NP. I assume that is the reason why fedora-extras-commits at redhat.com
exists ;-)

>  For obvious reasons I was doing the cvsup
> stuff on a slightly beefier machine (nice dual G5 at 2GHz) instead of the
> G4 machine I'm using for the rest of the extras builds -- when I copied
> the cvsup.spec back and committed I didn't realise it'd been modified in
> the meantime. Want me to put it back?

No, from my point it can stay ATM as it does not compile on x86_64
anyway. If I get it to compile I can also fix that.

But I noticed something else in between. Those folks that come from
gentoo might want to compile the package for i686... So is this

+ExclusiveArch: i386 ppc
+
+%ifarch i386
+%define M3TARGET LINUXLIBC6
+%endif

really a good idea? Is a "s/i386/%{ix86}/" maybe better here?
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>