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.

Bug 925677

Summary:	libbs2b: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Dennis Gilmore <dennis>
Component:	libbs2b	Assignee:	Karel Volný <kvolny>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	20	CC:	dennis, kvolny, pbrobinson
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-07-03 12:48:17 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	922257

Description Dennis Gilmore 2013-03-23 00:53:45 UTC

Support for the ARM 64 bit CPU architecture (aarch64) was introduced in 
autoconf 2.69.  libbs2b 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/libbs2b/libbs2b-aarch64.patch
which updates config.guess and config.sub to recognize aarch64.

Comment 1 Karel Volný 2013-08-26 14:25:54 UTC

I've just updated the package according to 2. (sorry for the delay ...) and asked the upstream to update the buildsystem.

Only after that, I've found that there already exists a build[1] which has passed on arm. Now I'm confused ... how is that possible that the build has passed without the update? Should I revert the changes?

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=441689

Comment 2 Karel Volný 2014-01-31 16:33:04 UTC

ok, bug #922257 #c1 explains ... however, as stated above, the change has already been done in 3.1.0-8, closing

Comment 3 Dennis Gilmore 2014-06-23 15:39:45 UTC

this package is currently ftbfs on aarch64