Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:45:57 -0500, David Huff wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Broken packages in fedora-updates-testing-9-ppc64:
appliance-tools-002.6-1.fc9.noarch requires qemu-img
To address this I added "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc
armv4l noarch", to the spec [1] which matches the qemu package. I was
told that this would prevent the compose tools form adding the
appliance-tools rpm to the ppc64 tree.
Why not "ExcludeArch: ppc64"?
Just to offer an outside perspective... IMO ExcludeArch makes sense when
a package is generically expected to work, but is known to have problems
on specific architectures (i.e. not working is the exception, not the
rule). For things like qemu (or valgrind, to give another example) that
are highly arch-specific, it makes more sense to list the arches that
are supported, even if that results in a longer list.
IOW, use whichever is more likely to DTRT when built on a totally novel
arch (e.g. arm, sparc, whatever) ;-).
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
Person A: It's an ISO standard.
Person B: ...And that means what?
-- mal (http://theangryadmin.blogspot.com/2008/04/future.html)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
