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

[Yaniv Bronheim]

I'd love to have such handling also in our rpm build..
we started some work in https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/42491 , lets try to
align the handling in both debian and fedora packaging.
feel free to post a patch for that as well and I promise to push it forward

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Milan Zamazal <mzamazal at redhat.com> wrote:

> Nir Soffer <nsoffer at redhat.com> 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 at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>



-- 
*Yaniv Bronhaim.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20160125/96f8e1e4/attachment-0001.html>