On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:00:58PM +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 12:29, Kamil Paral <kpa...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White <graham_al...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 > >> > >> Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the > >> Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking > >> Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for > >> some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64 > >> architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it > >> would be good to have it re-included in the repo. > > > > > > Multilib detection (which i686 packages should end up in x86_64 repos) is > > done in Pungi. There is some heuristics which I haven't found documented > > anywhere (one would think it should be in the packaging docs). A > > whitelisting of some package can be requested here: > > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issues
For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need to be
there.
For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo.
So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets
and folks should note which they are talking about above.
> > However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much to such
> > requests :-(
> > Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best make
> > sure those requests are noticed? Thanks.
releng ticket I would think, but can you expand on which requests aren't
noticed ?
> The logical is about, any -devel sub-packages are copied for both
> multilibs arches, then only the additional "arched" dependencies (with
> %{?_isa}) are computed from the -devel.i686 one.
Note that pungi calls python-multilib
https://pagure.io/releng/python-multilib/
but yeah... from the pungi docs:
* ``runtime`` -- packages that install some shared object file
(``*.so.*``) will match.
* ``devel`` -- packages whose name ends with ``-devel`` or ``--static``
suffix will be matched. When ``dnf`` is used, this method automatically
enables ``runtime`` method as well. With ``yum`` backend this method
also uses a hardcoded blacklist and whitelist.
> I can suggest a fix that will add theses dependencies in the
> glib-devel sub-package (1), but maybe it will be more relevant to
> restore an empty PackageKit-devel and add these here.
Yes, either of those would work, or whitelisting it in pungi-fedora.
> I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs, "self
> contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks.
>
> (1) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7
Yeah, I would definitely prefer that.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
