Athlon Incompatible Packages

[Mike A. Harris]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:

>> Is there any reason why those packages restrict arch to 386 and are not
>> compatible with athlon, or is that a bug? I'd like to be able to rebuild
>> them. Would you like me to file a bugzilla on each one?
>>
>> acpid-1.0.2-6.src.rpm
>> dietlibc-0.24-3.src.rpm
>> epiphany-1.0.7-1.src.rpm
>> fedora-release-1.90-11.src.rpm
>> festival-1.4.2-20.src.rpm
>> gaim-0.75-2.1.0.src.rpm
>> grub-0.94-2.src.rpm
>> libunwind-0.96-2.src.rpm
>> ltrace-0.3.29-2.src.rpm
>> memtest86-3.0-4.src.rpm
>> mkbootdisk-1.5.1-1.src.rpm
>> mozilla-1.6-1.src.rpm
>> openCryptoki-2.1.3-3.src.rpm
>> prelink-0.3.0-21.src.rpm
>> redhat-lsb-1.3-1.src.rpm
>> reiserfs-utils-3.6.11-2.src.rpm
>> syslinux-2.08-2.src.rpm
>> system-config-boot-0.2.1-1.1.src.rpm
>> system-config-netboot-0.1.3-2.1.src.rpm
>
>A good reason to restrict the package to i386 (besides the reasons that many 
>other have cited) is that at least one of these packages (grub) contains i386 
>assembler code ... it will not build on a x86_64 target for example.

Indeed.  But it _will_, or at least should build on "athlon" 
target.

After reading the entire thread about a seemingly TRIVIAL problem 
in a subset of rpms, I am now sickened by the attitude of some 
people about this type of problem.

I have decided to personally go through each and every rpm 
package, and determine if it is a simple trivial one liner 
problem to fix (as I assume it is), and to just go ahead and fix 
the ones that are trivial.

There is really no valid rational reason for anyone to oppose 
fixing this problem if it is indeed a trivial one liner fix, be 
they external contributors or internal Red Hatters.

Once I'm done, I will post a list of fixed packages.


-- 
Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat