RFC: proposed macro deffinitions for F-13

[Alexander Boström]

tis 2009-10-27 klockan 13:24 -0500 skrev Dennis Gilmore:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 01:16:46 pm Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 12:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > Id like to get some feedback on the patches that i'm proposing for F-13.
> > > quite a few packages that need to deal with differences between
> > > 32bit/64bit  or multilib arches have defines for the appropriate arches. 
> > > sometimes incomplete since they don't include secondary arches.
> > >
> > > I wanted to get some feedback. and see if there are other cases we should
> > > add.
> > 
> > +%multilib32 sparc sparcv8 sparcv9 sparcv9v ppc s390
> > +%multilib64 x86_64 sparc64 sparc64v ppc64 s390x
> > 
> > Remind me what the asymmetry is for here?  Why is %{ix86} not in
> > %{multilib32} ?

[...]

> it should be the attached patch.  the initial one was based on what gcc does 
> in its spec.  it treats %{ix86} as  not being multilib. 
> 
> +%multilib32 %{ix86} %{sparc32} ppc s390
> +%multilib64 x86_64 %{sparc64} ppc64 s390x

I thought the idea was: "multilibXX" is arches where libs go in "libXX"

Then "ix86" would indeed not be in multiliob32. (It should rather be in
"multilib" then, for symmetry...)

/abo