Build log for aarch64 failure

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

Is there a build log for the failure at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925597

I was able to build with arm-koji, and would like to know what caused
the bug to be filed. Appreciate any inputs in this regard.

Thanks!

SK

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Shakthi Kannan  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a build log for the failure at:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925597
>
> I was able to build with arm-koji, and would like to know what caused
> the bug to be filed. Appreciate any inputs in this regard.

aarch64 does not equate to arm-koji. aarch64 doesn't have a koji infra
yet as we're not to that stage of the bringup of the platform.

The reason the bug was filed is that to build on aarch64 platforms
there needs to be a newer version of config.guess/config.sub or
autoreconf needs to be run with the latest releases to ensure the
supporting bits are there. We used an automated script and packages
that don't appear to have the needed bits got a bug report. In some
cases there are false positives.

Peter

[Shakthi Kannan]

Hi,

--- On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Peter Robinson  wrote:
| aarch64 does not equate to arm-koji. aarch64 doesn't have a koji infra
| yet as we're not to that stage of the bringup of the platform.
--

I see.

---
| The reason the bug was filed is that to build on aarch64 platforms
| there needs to be a newer version of config.guess/config.sub or
| autoreconf needs to be run with the latest releases to ensure the
| supporting bits are there. We used an automated script and packages
| that don't appear to have the needed bits got a bug report. In some
| cases there are false positives.
--

So, to be on the safer side, is it recommended to rebuild the package
with "autoconf"?

SK

[Peter Robinson]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Shakthi Kannan  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Peter Robinson  wrote:
> | aarch64 does not equate to arm-koji. aarch64 doesn't have a koji infra
> | yet as we're not to that stage of the bringup of the platform.
> --
>
> I see.
>
> | The reason the bug was filed is that to build on aarch64 platforms
> | there needs to be a newer version of config.guess/config.sub or
> | autoreconf needs to be run with the latest releases to ensure the
> | supporting bits are there. We used an automated script and packages
> | that don't appear to have the needed bits got a bug report. In some
> | cases there are false positives.
> --
>
> So, to be on the safer side, is it recommended to rebuild the package
> with "autoconf"?

"autoreconf -vif" is probably the best option.

Peter