Re: [ovirt-devel] Packaging: Rationale for some split packages

Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: > Note that safeelase requires several packages which are *not* required > for safelease, but for vdsm. > > Currently vdsm is noarch rpm, so it cannot require arch specific packages. > since it requires safelease, we added arch specific packages to safelease. Thank you for making me aware about those dependencies. The same problem exists in Debian, I'll think how to handle it (making vdsm package architecture specific being the obvious default choice, the safelease hack is out question). _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel