On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@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?