On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:40:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > No. The pushscript makes available the i386 development packages for > > x86_64, so you can develop for i386 on x86_64. > > > > And does this in a very stupid way, for some reason in your reply you didn't > bother to react to this: What is stupid? > --- > > No this sounds like a BAD solution to me. We are going to have this problem for > every non noarch perl / python / ruby / xxx package that happens to split of a > -devel package (for example because of .pc files). > > --- > > Where I was talking about the pygame-devel issue, pygame-devel is gone as it was broken. It required the main package without reason, and the main package required 32-bit Python which is not available for x86_64. The alternative would have been to blacklist pygame-devel. > simply putting all .i386 > packages which have a -devel subpackage / provides in the x86_64 tree is wrong. > Stupid. Wrong. Why? White-list, black-list, what do you refuse to understand? IMO, the gnumeric-devel package is broken and should be eliminated. It would not be the first -devel package which should never have been published. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
