Cleaning up an old spec file

[Quentin Spencer]

Christopher Aillon wrote:

> On 08/05/2005 01:27 PM, Quentin Spencer wrote:
>
>> 2. %ifarch s390
>> I guess this probably isn't needed for Fedora. Does RHEL still 
>> support this arch? Is it worth retaining this type of thing for 
>> future support, or is this obsolete?
>
>
> Red Hat supports s390(x) indeed for our enterprise line of products.  
> If the package in question intends to make it into RHEL, s390 support 
> will likely be a requirement for Red Hat (though that should not 
> necessarily mean that Fedora must make it a requirement).
>
> I'm curious as to why there are architecture specific changes in a 
> spec file.  They sometimes they denote a specific workaround for an 
> issue.  If so, the problem might be good to get upstreamed.


For what it's worth, here's the code in question:

%ifarch s390
(cd readline && libtoolize --copy --force)
(cd glob && libtoolize --copy --force)
(cd kpathsea && libtoolize --copy --force)
%endif

It appears from the changelog that this code was introduced in early 
2001, but it's not relevant now because the subdirectories in question 
no longer exist (I think their purpose was to keep copies of libraries 
in case they were unavailable on a particular system). I'm removing all 
of this. I'm also removing a line that excluded ppc64 and s390x. These 
aren't relevant to Fedora, but even if this spec was to be used in RHEL, 
it is likely octave would compile on those platforms because it has 
changed a lot in recent years.

-Quentin