https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 --- Comment #37 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > 2. split the source package into systemd-boot-x86_64 and > systemd-boot-aarch64, and > make the packages BuildArch:noarch. systemd-boot-x86_64 would build > systemd-boot-x64.noarch, > systemd-boot-ia32.noarch, and systemd-boot-aarch64 would build > systemd-boot-aarch64.noarch. > The problem is that the builds would fail if scheduled on the wrong > architecture, > i.e. we'd need to cancel and repeat the builds until the right arch of > builder is > encountered. This would be fairly terrible. Well. You can have a systemd-boot-x86_64.srpm package which is exclusivearch x86_64 and produces an empty main package plus a systemd-boot-unsigned-x64.noarch subpackage. Ideally you would have a single systemd-boot.srpm which produces systemd-boot-unsigned-x64.noarch when compiled on x86_64 and systemd-boot-unsigned-aa64.noarch when compiled on aarch64, but IIRC that works on RHEL only. One of the annonying build system differences between rhel and fedora. -- 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
