On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Here's one: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849 > > Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR > merged, so I updated it: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811 > > A third one: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/501
ok, looked at all those, thanks. > > 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. > > Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make it > multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In order > to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like > "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi > process that? Feel free to suggest it to rpm. ;) I'd personally just like to drop i686 entirely, but I don't think everyone else is ready for 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
