rpms/firmware-addon-dell/EL-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 firmware-addon-dell.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3
Rex Dieter
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Fri Mar 30 18:55:13 UTC 2007
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/firmware-addon-dell/EL-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 firmware-addon-dell.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Next message (by thread): rpms/firmware-addon-dell/EL-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 firmware-addon-dell.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
Michael E Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:44:41PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> I recall debating this a bit in the Packaging committee... I think
>> you're right, see,
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo
>> "arch-specific script packages"
> umm... note that this section is titled, "Things to be *considered* for
> Packaging Guidelines". If it was a packaging guideline, it would be
> filed under /PackagingGuidelines.
good point! This one deserves more discussion.
Upon further reflection, I'm not sure the proposed guideline applies in
this case anyway, ie, it's not a package containing scripts that use
arch-specific tools/packages, or is it?
> There have been a couple of recent threads about this, and the answer
> has always been: add an "ExcludeArch:" line so that the compose scripts
> skip that pkg for those named repos.
Right, that's just the (general) method to omit .noarch packages from
certain archs.
> And at that point, you break my upgrade path, as
> last time I checked, yum would not upgrade a .noarch pkg to a (eg.)
> .i386 package or vice-versa.
Yeah, that gets unfun fast.
-- Rex
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/firmware-addon-dell/EL-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 firmware-addon-dell.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Next message (by thread): rpms/firmware-addon-dell/EL-4 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 firmware-addon-dell.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list