https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7531
--- Comment #5 from Elaine Gibson <[email protected]> ---
> I'm not sure which is the target here.
> The main package is mentioned to be an (arched) meta-package, -src will be
> noarch and picoasm will be provided as x86_64, aarch64 and ppcle64 in
> rpmfusion (given the default target arches).
> -> Does that make sense ?
I think so.
- pico-sdk is what users would want to install for general development.
- pico-sdk must be arched because it has arched subpackages.
- pico-sdk-src is required at build time by picotool, but the rest of the
metapackage is not.
- pioasm can reasonably be used without the rest of the SDK.
> Eventually it might be relevant to use ExclusiveArch: x86_64 aarch64 if
> picoasm can be used on theses arches. Using ppc64le for picopi development
> could be possible but quite a corner case...
I agree it's a corner case but if the SDK works there I don't see why it should
be excluded, I know some people play games on their Talos II :P
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
