On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > There were multiple bug reports, all closed, some marked "not a bug". > Our favorite upstream vendor did not include the "glibc-static.i686" > package in their main "channels", probably as part of the separation > and clean-out of non-x86_64 packages from i686 packages. This was also > not a problem on their "enterprise release" version 5 which > auto-installed i686 packages along with x86_64 packages by default. > Whoever closed the bug reports considered "manually install the > package to compile grub" to be enough of an answer. I filed a bug report for this issue with respect to RHEL-6 here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=641739 I did my best to explain what the real issue was but it was also closed as NOTABUG. One outcome was that glibc-static.i686 was eventually made available for x86_64. > I'm a bit confused about why it didn't show up in the Scientific Linux > build setups, and would like to get a better handle on how those are > done. I believe that SL developers try not to modify the source if the 'problem' can be dealt with by manipulating the build environment/setup. I'm sure grub is not the only one that needs such endeavour. > Unfortunately, my patch had a bug. Using "BuildRequires: > glibc-static.i686" does not, in fact, find the .i686 version of > glibc-static, it expects a package named "glibc-static.i686" of an > arbitrary architecture. You can add "BuildRequires: /usr/lib/libc.a" as noted in comment #6 of the above bugzilla. Akemi