[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [fedora-virt] qemu/kvm status
- From: Glauber Costa <glommer redhat com>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc: fedora-virt redhat com, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [fedora-virt] qemu/kvm status
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:53:15 -0200
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 01:46:49PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:59 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
> > The idea is that you can have your package built on an architecture
> > exclusively with BuildArch directive. But your package can then have
> > a subpackage with BuildArch: noarch. That way, your package will span
> > all repositories. This seems like the perfect solution to us.
>
> Yep, that would be ideal ... as long as people don't take to throw
> things at us for shipping arch specific binaries in a noarch package :-)
>
> Seriously, it sounds like it should work really well.
>
> > I've
> > helped them to proceed with some tests, and it seem to work. So what
> > I'm plannin on doing, is post the rpms for review today, since it is
> > unlikely that they will receive more updates in this mean time.
> >
> > Getting them review and approved is the really important bits. We can
> > set on the ideal solution a bit later.
>
> Yep, agree.
Please people:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485417
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485418
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485420
You can help me out in this enterprise by reviewing the aforementioned
BZs.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]