On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:44 AM Pablo Sebastián Greco
<pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> El 7/8/19 a las 12:30, Stephen John Smoogen escribió:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 10:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all.
>>
>> While building my Fedora packages for EPEL8, got a very strange error on
>> aarch64 and s390x architectures:
>>
>> No matching package to install: 'pkgconfig(pidgin)'
>>
>> But it builds fine with the same SPEC on x86_64 and ppc64le.
>>
>
> OK so it turns out that RHEL-8 is NOT 1:1 across platforms. For some reason desktop is only on x86_64 and ppc64le and s390/aarch64 are a more limited set of packages. I don't know if this was the case with the beta's and I missed it or if this was something done between the beta and the final.
>
> At this point, i am going to say that ExclusiveArch:x86_64,ppc64le will be needed for most desktop/graphical utilities.
>
> Smooge, can we ask to add %{arm} to those ExclusiveArch?
> O in fact, go the ExcludeArch route?
>
> That will do my armhfp rebuild much simpler.
>
I don't think Smooge was saying that EPEL8 would have a build policy
for ExclusiveArch, he was meaning that package maintainers would need
to put that in their spec file.
Ahh .... and now I see what you mean. You are asking the package
maintainers to put %{arm} in.
OK, I just put it on the packages I have been working on.
Also, here is the EPEL issue about this problem
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/66
And the Beta was the same way as this. But I personally, never tested
the desktop on s390x or aarch64. So I never noticed.
Troy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
