On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:18 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 09:46, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I'm sure it was announced but I've been very busy lately but while trying to build a package for EPEL 8 I noticed that two builds (arches) failed for missing dependencies but two did not. >> >> I see that there are a number of arches not originally part of RHEL 8, which is fine, but when the arches were added shouldn't all of the affected packages been rebuilt to add the new arches? >> > > I don't know what you are seeing to say this. The arches which were initially there were x86_64, ppc64le, s390x and aarch64. I don't know of any arches added after that and those have been in el8 since day 1. > Actually, no. RHEL8 has many packages that are not on s390x or aarch64. This EPEL ticket has been open for a while and lists them all, at least for RHEL 8.0 https://pagure.io/epel/issue/66 If you hit one of these packages, then you need to start putting ExclusiveArch statements in your spec files. 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
