On 03/08/2017 06:04 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> shouldn't default mark be moved?
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
>
shouldn't default mark be moved?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
MJW also says not needed, closing.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#issuecomment-285035471___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Closed #171.
--
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/171#event-991302904___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
We never needed anything because the x86_64 architecture never further mutated.
Unless AArch64 also mutates like the 32-bit ARM architectures did, I don't see
why we need `%arm64`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
Closed #167 via #168.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/167#event-991074176___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Merged #168.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/168#event-991074180___
Rpm-maint mailing list
what I meant is that we have `%{ix86}` which represents `i386 i486 i586 ...`,
but we don't have anything for `x86_64`
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
but why not to use just aarch64 in specs?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/173#issuecomment-284974832___