On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:57:39 -0500, David Huff wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Er, what exactly is the issue at hand?
>
> I added "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l noarch" to
> the spec file however it is still reporting broken dep of qemu for ppc64.
>
> So either the rpm *is* being pulled in to the tree eventhough
> ExclusiveArch is set, or whatever is checking for broken deops is
> reporting incorrectly.
Explain how you think the broken deps checker would be broken!
The package _is_ in the ppc64 tree, isn't it?
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/10/ppc64/appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
Btw:
$ rpm -qp --qf '[%{exclusivearch} ]' appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.src.rpm
i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l
I leave the 2nd part of the exercise to you. Find out whether "mash" evaluates
%exclusivearch.
>
> -D
>
> I know this is an old thread however I just got two more notifications
> for two new RPMs:
>
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
> dependencies:
> >
> > package: appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch from fedora-updates-10-ppc64
> > unresolved deps:
> > qemu-img
> >
> > Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
> dependencies:
> >
> > package: appliance-tools-002.8-1.fc9.noarch from
> fedora-updates-testing-9-ppc64
> > unresolved deps:
> > qemu-img
>
>
>
--
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.i686
loadavg: 2.75 2.48 2.18
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
