On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:31:45 PM Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote: > On 03/29/2013 11:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > What was the package? > GMP with configure 2.69 (apparently). Autoreconf -fi in use for a long time. > > Thank you for the confirmation. What is the right course of action > expected from every affected packager? Add autoreconf -vfi and defer > contacting upstream until we are competent?
I would *not* contact upstream, really. This big bunch of bugzillas was filled too early imo. I would still try to improve status of all bugzillas just for people who did not anything and who not reading this thread. Trying to suggest upstream to upgrade to autoconf 2.69 may really look shamefully. A lot of affected packages is not dependant on autoconf.. Running autoreconf (with -fi! which was not mentioned in original bugreports) will probably work (in a case that enough up2date automake is installed on the system) - but there is important to say that not only the files config.{guess,sub} will be replaced then. Some quick and dirty workaround is possible for rpm. Just for aarch64 architecture try to find config.guess/config.sub files in package and replace them with current files packaged in automake. This is definitely less work than patch every single package. As a long term solution I would like to see is (a) the gnuconfig [1] package in fedora and (b) the upstream config.guess/config.sub files to be able to ask the system wide config.guess/config.sub files whether they are newer and run them instead in that case. I will try to discuss this with upstream (if nobody started to talk on this still) and package gnuconfig in fedora. [1] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/config.git/tree/ Links worth to read: [2] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2013-03/msg00272.html [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926610 Pavel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel