[PATCH] kernel.spec: enable building of perf with libnuma support

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme at redhat.com> wrote:
> Em Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:22:53AM -0400, Josh Boyer escreveu:
>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Dan Horák <dan at danny.cz> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:10:11 -0400
>> > Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:01:21PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Em Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:51:35AM -0400, Josh Boyer escreveu:
>> >> > > Thanks.  I'll look at getting this into today's rawhide build.
>
>> >> > FYI, checked with Jiri Olsa and he tells me that in RHEL7 it is:
>
>> >> > %if %{with_perf}
>> >> > BuildRequires: elfutils-devel zlib-devel binutils-devel bison
>> >> > BuildRequires: audit-libs-devel
>> >> > %ifnarch s390 s390x
>> >> > BuildRequires: numactl-devel
>> >> > %endif
>> >> > %endif
>
>> >> Thanks.  I'll leave it as-is until the secondary arch teams request
>> >> numa support.
>
>> > my opinion is to go with the RHEL %ifnarch s390 s390x - we (at least
>> > ppc + s390) want to be close to the enterprise kernel
>
>> But then I have to do work instead of just running 'git am' :).  OK,
>> OK.  I'll tweak it to match RHEL.
>
> Thanks, my comment was on that line, its possible that this whole
> process happened in RHEL, i.e. justification to be like that, and in
> this case, Fedora should try to match that, if we find problems with
> that, then we tell RHEL, etc, i.e. symbiosis. :-)

Sure, makes sense.  Though if the whole thing evolved in RHEL and then
we have to change Fedora to match, it was done backwards.  Something
to keep in mind going forward :).

josh