On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 09:46, Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure it was announced but I've been very busy lately but while trying > to build a package for EPEL 8 I noticed that two builds (arches) failed for > missing dependencies but two did not. > > I see that there are a number of arches not originally part of RHEL 8, > which is fine, but when the arches were added shouldn't all of the affected > packages been rebuilt to add the new arches? > > I don't know what you are seeing to say this. The arches which were initially there were x86_64, ppc64le, s390x and aarch64. I don't know of any arches added after that and those have been in el8 since day 1. > Thanks, > Richard > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
