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 926710

Summary:	wastesedge: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Dennis Gilmore <dennis>
Component:	wastesedge	Assignee:	Mathieu Bridon <bochecha>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bochecha, pbrobinson
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2014-06-10 13:18:43 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 16:30:59 UTC

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

Comment 1 Mathieu Bridon 2013-03-24 04:11:54 UTC

There probably won't be any new release of wastesedge before a while, as upstream has been working for a long time now on the new version, which is quite ambitious and they have extremely few developers.

So option 1 doesn't seem likely (at least not for the current version).

Option 2 could become nasty very quickly, if they use old/deprecated stuff in their autotools stuff, and again, they probably wouldn't be interested in the fixes for this version.

So option 3 seems like the best way for this package.

I don't quite understand what the patch does, and I have no idea about aarch64, so if you're a provenpackager, feel free to just go ahead and apply the patch and rebuild. :)