On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:45:32 -0800 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 2014-02-22 at 10:06 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:41:37 +1100 > > Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 08:49 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > > Agreed, perhaps a mail to the copr mailing list would be in > > > > order. > > > > > > I dropped a mail to the COPR mailing list. For the time being, > > > setting up separate repos for x86_64 and i386 should work: > > > > > > http://paste.fedoraproject.org/79449/93059786/ > > > > Enabling both on a x86_64 machine? > > > > I don't think thats a good idea... mulitlib doesn't include _all_ > > 32bit packages in the 64bit repo, only some, so you could well get > > conflicts doing that. > > Well, the 'obvious' thing would be for COPRs to follow the same > multilib policy: if something's multilib in the base distro and you > build it in a COPR, it gets multilibbed there too. Well, I was answering the idea of just enabling both repos on a 64bit system. ;) I don't know how hard it would be for copr to be multilib aware. It would have to run mash or something over the two repos, so it could be difficult/slow. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
