Paul Elliott wrote: > http://wiki.links2linux.de/en/index.php/PackMan:PackagingConventions#Biarch.2FAMD64 > > > Biarch/AMD64 > > Various issues related to building on biarch/amd64 architecture: > > must use %suse_update_config -f and %suse_update_libdir before > > configure > > with every package - note that it might break the build of some > > packages, > > so it must be tested (only remove it if it breaks), like this: > > > ... > > %{?suse_update_config:BuildRequires:autoconf automake libtool} > > ... > > %prep > > %setup -q ..... > > %{?suse_update_libdir:%{suse_update_libdir}} > > %{?suse_update_config:%{suse_update_config -f}} > > > Why did the packman people say this, why are they wrong, and what should > I do instead?
In history, there was a long period, when upstream autotools were not able to detect x86_64 and even longer period (not finished yet) when programmers learned, that $(libdir) might be different from $(prefix)/lib. This was the easiest way to make it working. Correct is: 1. Package should behave correctly. 2. If it does not, try autoreconf. If it helps, ask authors to use newer autotools chain. 3. If it does not help, create a patch and send it upstream. If you are lazy: 1. Package should behave correctly. 2. If it does not, call suse_update* hacks and hope that it fixed it. Incorrect is: 1. Call suse_update* hacks every time and hope that it did not break it. 2. If it breaks, don't call it. -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 966 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
