https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 --- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #11) > (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. > There's no guidelines for EFI stuff in Fedora because nobody expected anyone to do more than shim+grub. The only reason I know (outside of the RH bootloader people) how all this works is because I spent two years doing research on the whole thing. This split makes it possible for multiple EFI variants to be installed at once (e.g. ia32 + x64, etc.). > > * 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' ? Sure, I'm fine with that. It's inconsistent with the others, but meh... -- 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
