Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
|Summary:||alpine: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Dennis Gilmore <dennis>|
|Component:||alpine||Assignee:||Joshua Daniel Franklin <joshuadfranklin>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||chappa, dennis, jima, joshuadfranklin, pwouters, rdieter|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2013-12-07 14:03:21 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Dennis Gilmore 2013-03-23 00:00:06 UTC
Support for the ARM 64 bit CPU architecture (aarch64) was introduced in autoconf 2.69. alpine appears to use an earlier version of autoconf, preventing its being built. This can be fixed in of three ways (In order of preference): 1. Work with upstream to migrate the package to autoconf 2.69. 2. Rerun autoconf or autoreconf in %prep or %build prior to running configure. 3. Apply the patch at http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/aarch64/alpine/alpine-aarch64.patch which updates config.guess and config.sub to recognize aarch64.
Comment 1 Joshua Daniel Franklin 2013-03-23 00:49:07 UTC
Thanks. "upstream" may be changing, see BZ 838359
Comment 2 Eduardo Chappa 2013-03-24 17:39:39 UTC
Dear Joshua, Are you (RedHat) distributing version 2.69 of autoconf? For how long have you been distributing it and what percentage of your users are using a distribution that supports autoconf 2.69? If these numbers are not very high, probably the patch would be the way to go. I do not want to impose a requirement on something that is not really needed for most users. Alpine requires version 2.57 (from 2002), so moving to version 2.69 might not be the best idea today, but later on (where "later" is undefined as to when "later" arrives). Do you have any thoughts? -- Eduardo
Comment 3 Joshua Daniel Franklin 2013-03-25 14:14:38 UTC
Hi Eduardo, Fedora 18 includes autoconf 2.69, the build system supports it, and it will be a requirement for ARM64 users. While a low percentage of Fedora or Red Hat users have updated to autoconf 2.69 to support aarch64, generally users don't use autoconf, just the binaries or source we provide which already generated configure and so on. So the status at this point is that it seems like a good time for upstream to support the new aarch64 platform if possible. Otherwise we would need to rerun autoconf or autoreconf to build for this platform.
Comment 4 Joshua Daniel Franklin 2013-11-17 14:12:45 UTC
Hi, We've switch upstream, could we get the ARM 64 patch rebased against alpine 2.11 ? http://patches.freeiz.com/alpine/release/src/alpine-2.11.tar.xz A bunch of Hunks FAILED on this one.
Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2013-11-17 15:03:53 UTC
Being automake-based, fedora's new %configure macro should handle this automatically (it copies in fresh known-good versions of config.guess and config.sub and friends)
Comment 6 Joshua Daniel Franklin 2013-12-07 14:03:21 UTC
OK if this is handled automatically I'll close this bugzilla.
Comment 7 Dennis Gilmore 2014-06-23 15:45:28 UTC
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=212753 alpine is built fine