On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 22:53 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:58:03AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > Additional complications can arise from "shared/common files" and from > > config files (E.g. some *.la's and *.pc's are not unlikely to become > > problematic). They need to be looked after on a case by case basis. > > It's annoying that the .pc file includes a libdir=/usr/lib64, else a > -devel (without the .a) could be noarch. :-( As it stands, we won't > be able to install the -devel as multi-arch because all the .h files > will conflict. > Even then it can't be noarch. rpm(build) doesn't allow different archs for different subpackages. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
