On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:44 AM Pablo Sebastián Greco <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > El 7/8/19 a las 12:30, Stephen John Smoogen escribió: > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 10:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hello all. >> >> While building my Fedora packages for EPEL8, got a very strange error on >> aarch64 and s390x architectures: >> >> No matching package to install: 'pkgconfig(pidgin)' >> >> But it builds fine with the same SPEC on x86_64 and ppc64le. >> > > OK so it turns out that RHEL-8 is NOT 1:1 across platforms. For some reason desktop is only on x86_64 and ppc64le and s390/aarch64 are a more limited set of packages. I don't know if this was the case with the beta's and I missed it or if this was something done between the beta and the final. > > At this point, i am going to say that ExclusiveArch:x86_64,ppc64le will be needed for most desktop/graphical utilities. > > Smooge, can we ask to add %{arm} to those ExclusiveArch? > O in fact, go the ExcludeArch route? > > That will do my armhfp rebuild much simpler. > I don't think Smooge was saying that EPEL8 would have a build policy for ExclusiveArch, he was meaning that package maintainers would need to put that in their spec file. Ahh .... and now I see what you mean. You are asking the package maintainers to put %{arm} in. OK, I just put it on the packages I have been working on. Also, here is the EPEL issue about this problem https://pagure.io/epel/issue/66 And the Beta was the same way as this. But I personally, never tested the desktop on s390x or aarch64. So I never noticed. Troy _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx