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

[Don Zickus]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:53:30AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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 :).

+1 Agreed.  I will try to remind RHEL folks to push spec file changes like
this to Fedora to help avoid fallout like the arm build. :-(

Cheers,
Don