Bug 68647 – [PATCH] patch for creating rpm's on x86_64

• Status: VERIFIED FIXED
• Product: Portage Development

[Description Lee Thompson 2004-10-23 10:49:02 UTC]

The command
    ebuild /path/to/ebuild rpm
Fails on the x86_64 version of linux due to hard coding of "i386" in ebuild.sh

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.run "ebuild /path/to/ebuild rpm"
Actual Results:  
command created /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/<ebuild>.x86_64.rpm successfully
command fails to recreate rpm in /usr/portage/rpm due to "i386" coding

Expected Results:  
Created /usr/portage/rpm file

[Comment 1 Lee Thompson 2004-10-23 10:50:48 UTC]

Created attachment 42459 [details, diff]
ebuild.sh patch

Attempt to fix issue.  Could be enhanced for more platforms like ppc, ppc64,
etc

[Comment 2 Danny van Dyk (RETIRED) 2005-02-10 19:32:38 UTC]

This is surely a feature request for portage devs.
Redirecting...

[Comment 3 Brian Harring (RETIRED) 2005-02-10 19:35:51 UTC]

Would prefer this to be an $ARCH translation, rather then a specific exemption for amd64 ~= x86_64.
Up for it?

[Comment 4 Lee Thompson 2005-04-07 09:24:29 UTC]

Created attachment 55566 [details, diff]
use `uname -m`

This one uses uname -m which is more generic.

[Comment 5 Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon 2005-07-02 17:51:44 UTC]

as the generated SPEC doesn't include "ARCH" hints, rpm will use the main
supported architecture to generate the package even if not needed (as on a
noarch package which doesn't contain any binaries) which will default to x86_64
on amd64 machines, i386 on x86 machines and so.

using `uname -m` as proposed then will let `ebuild rpm` complete correctly on
any supported architecture.

it is important to stress that the original bug report didn't scope the problem
correctly, as it is not specific to x86_64 but to any architecture other than
i386 thanks to the hardcoded architecture path and so the subject should be
rather "patch for creating rpm's on platforms other than i386"

[Comment 6 Jason Stubbs (RETIRED) 2005-07-28 07:25:32 UTC]

Putting a hold on feature requests for portage as they are drowning out the 
bugs. Most of these features should be available in the next major version of 
portage. But for the time being, they are just drowning out the major bugs and 
delaying the next version's progress. 
 
Any bugs that contain patches and any bugs for etc-update or dispatch-conf can 
be reopened. Sorry, I'm just not good enough with bugzilla. ;) 

[Comment 7 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) 2007-01-11 13:52:29 UTC]

Reopening for consideration.

[Comment 8 Jeff Johnson 2010-09-09 16:32:51 UTC]

tracked at https://bugs.launchpad.net/rpm/+bug/634206

[Comment 9 Zac Medico 2010-09-09 16:57:01 UTC]

This seems to have been fixed for a couple of years now:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=12db02c2d286057968a37159da7e6f651a53de6a

[Comment 10 Jeff Johnson 2010-09-11 03:28:47 UTC]

Then close the bug please. I'm not very interested in >5 year old already fixed rpm bugs.
nor is anyone else.

Thanks I can see already RESOLVED FIXED.