сб, 2 дек. 2023 г., 10:20 Андрей Спицын <[email protected]>:
> Hello Phyllis, Terje and Andrew > > Thanks for testing! > > I have some experience with rpm-based systems. Why does dnf select the > i686 architecture in the first place? On Debian based systems, apt selects > the original architecture of the system by default. > > Andrew, I think the spec file should be architecture agnostic. Otherwise > I'll have to patch it when I add i686 or arm64 builder. > may be ?_isa macro from rpm 4.6.0 can help? https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/arch_dependencies.html ==== copy ==== ISA Dependencies In rpm 4.6.0, the concept of ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) was introduced to permit differentiating between 32- and 64-bit versions without resorting to file dependencies on obscure and/or library-version dependent paths. To declare a dependency on a package name architecture specific, append %{?_isa} to the dependency name, eg Requires: libbar-devel%{?_isa} >= 2.2 This will expand to libbar-devel(archfamily-bitness) depending on the build target architecture, for example a native build on x86_64 would give Requires: libbar-devel(x86-64) >= 2.2 but with –target i386 (or i586, i686 etc) it would become Requires: libbar-devel(x86-32) >= 2.2 Note that this requires all the involved packages must have been built with rpm >= 4.6.0, older versions do not add the necessary name(isa) provides to packages. == copy end === it seems that rpm 4.6.0 surfaced in 2009 ... https://lwn.net/Articles/318586/ > Best regards, > Andrey > > сб, 2 дек. 2023 г., 03:07 Phyllis Smith via Cin < > [email protected]>: > >> Thanks Terje ! works much better now once I installed the x86_64 >> version, which should have been automatic in the first place. >> Sorry Andrey for my dumb mistake -- it installed from the build farm and >> works just fine -- I just wanted to test it. >> >> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:54 PM Phyllis Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Terje, nice catch and definitely wrong BUT can not understand why that >>> happened?! >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:40 PM Terje J. Hanssen via Cin < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Phyllis, >>>> >>>> Maybe a stupid question, but as you have suil-0.10.18-1.fc38.i686 >>>> installed: >>>> Is this 32bit lib just just added to 64bit or a base 32bit (i686) >>>> Fedora OS? >>>> >>>> Terje >>>> >>>> Den 01.12.2023 23:46, skrev Phyllis Smith via Cin: >>>> >>>> Andrey, this is NOT Important as I was just playing around with a newly >>>> installed Fedora 38, but here is what went wrong. >>>> >>>> # rpm -i cinelerra-5.1-20231201.fc38.x86_64.rpm >>>> error: Failed dependencies: >>>> libsuil-0.so.0()(64bit) is needed by cinelerra-5.1-20231201.x86_64 >>>> # dnf install libsuil-0.so.0 >>>> ... >>>> Installed: >>>> suil-0.10.18-1.fc38.i686 >>>> ... >>>> # rpm -i cinelerra-5.1-20231201.fc38.x86_64.rpm >>>> error: Failed dependencies: >>>> libsuil-0.so.0()(64bit) is needed by cinelerra-5.1-20231201.x86_64 >>>> >>>> I will see if I can find the exact older version needed and install it >>>> instead. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 5:14 AM Андрей Спицын <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Phyllis and everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I've created a build farm for cinelerra deb and rpm packages. Although >>>>> it is at an early stage of development, it can build packages on every git >>>>> change in the main repo. Feel free to use these packages at >>>>> https://github.com/einhander/cin-gg-packages/releases. Note that >>>>> releases correspond to a build date, not a git commit date. >>>>> Current build hosts are debian 12 and alma linux 8. I'm open to >>>>> suggestions for a new distro and packages. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Andrey Spitsyn >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cin mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin >>>> >>> -- >> Cin mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin >> >>
-- Cin mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cinelerra-gg.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
