>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> writes: MS> When you know that nx is not available on one platform, you cannot MS> (should not!) make freenx noarch and let it depend on a MS> non-available nx. I don't think it reasonable, though, to prevent a package from being noarch just because somewhere in its dependency tree is a package which is not available on every architecture. It would be better to somehow inform the buildsystem or the sign&push script that the noarch package shouldn't go out to all of the architectures. (Assuming it can't just figure that out on its own.) Even better, of course, would be to fix nx. We're nearly fifteen years into the era of common 64-bit computing! One wonders how you can expect upstream to get something important like security correct when they've ignored something fundamental like 64-bitness. - J< -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
