https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 --- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8) > There's a couple of things you probably want to do here: > > * The systemd-boot-unsigned and systemd-boot packages should have their efi > architectures as suffixes, similar to shim and grub Hmm, but why? I don't see any guideline that'd require this, and it makes things more complicated. > * Since this package provides the signed versions, please add > systemd-boot-signed-%efi_arch Provides (shim does this too) What about 'Provides:systemd-boot-signed(%{efi_arch)) = %version-%release' ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
