https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329188 --- Comment #8 from Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Krzysztof Czurylo from comment #7) > 1) I'll remove the scripts modifying /etc/magic from the RPM spec file. > > 2) The optimized routines cannot be just omitted, as they are part of > libpmem API. Theoretically, to build it for non-x86_64 we could replace > them with something that internally calls msync(), or... with empty routines > (making sure pmem_is_pmem() would always return 0 in such case). Based on > the status returned by pmem_is_pmem(), the properly written program should > switch to use pmem_msync(). > > However, I don't see a big value in doing that, as such library won't be > really useful, except for some testing/experimental purposes. So, I would > rather opt for not supporting other architectures, unless someone will > explicitly request it and provide the arch-specific implementation of the > low-level routines. > Seems like this is acceptable: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures > > The other question is - what to do with 32-bit platforms? By design, NVML > cannot be compiled for 32-bit platforms. Shall we file bugs for those? Yes, use multiple ExcludeArch lines instead of ExclusiveArch and file bugs for the primary architectures you don't plan to support: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx