https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2079784 --- Comment #39 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #38) > > 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. > > OK. We could do that. I don't particularly *like* the idea, but I guess > the update+build would be scripted anyway, so doing it for each architecture > would be tolerable. A side-tag can be used so that there's just one update > in the end. > > Before starting work on this: is this important / useful enough to justify > the effort? Hmm, I was about to answer 'kernel cross builds' but I suspect 'dracut --uefi' (which needs the stubs from the package) is not going to work for cross builds anyway. So I'd say hold for now, lets wait with this until we have an actual use case. -- 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
