On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need
to
be there.
For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo.
Sigh.
So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets
and folks should note which they are talking about above.
Thanks, I'll try to remember that.
> However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much
to such
requests :-(
> > Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best
make sure those requests are noticed? Thanks.
releng ticket I would think, but can you expand on which requests aren't
noticed ?
Here's one:
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849
Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR
merged, so I updated it:
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811
A third one:
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/501
I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs,
"self
> contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks.
>
> (1)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7
Yeah, I would definitely prefer that.
Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make it
multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In order
to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like
"Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi
process that?