<p dir="ltr">Mike, actually I don't want to discuss it here, I think it's not a good place. IMO AArch64 is too young to introduce it. When I started my packaging life there is no such arch.</p>
<p dir="ltr">You may noticed that from 2013 there are many such requests appeared, all of them have same content and a patch automatically generated by a script. That's what Red Hat people are doing, in fact about 1800 packages have received such request. I cannot say this is right or wrong, solving the problem may via many ways.</p>
<p dir="ltr">AArch64 is an new arch we finally have to face. I know what you want to express, In fact it's true that we cannot ask every upstream to update their config. I use autoreconf to reconfigure, but sometimes <br>
it cannot solve the problem. So I consider a request at upstream. Applying such a big patch is cumbersome, and of course ridiculous.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Some developers at SUSE have already discussed the problem of this. They want to fix it by patching the RPM as you expected. But I don't know the progress now, and in Fedora there is no such patch available now, and maybe for a while.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Red Hat people threw out a point:</p>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-April/181055.html">http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-April/181055.html</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">Please have a look. We also welcome you to discuss this problem with us. We are looking forward to such discussion. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Thanks.</p>