Originally arches were split, but Liora Milbaum proposed that a single file
would be better as it would guaranteed consistency.
As Liora has background in both Red Hat In-Vehicle Operating System [1] and
Bootc [2] who are both potential candidates for usage of the lock files and
especially [1] cares very much about consistency and safety. We evaluated this
as reasonable.
Building a container for multiple architectures is single use-case, actually a
use-case that will be more and more common because x86_64 arch domination is
shifting (wide adoption of ARM, rise of RISC) so multi arch builds are must
have and consistency between arches is desired. I don't think this is (and ever
was a private use-case).
If you want to have separate arches, it can be still easily done, current
format doesn't block this in any way. Frankly it also feel more natural to have
architecture listed in the file directly rather then encoding it into the
filename, where it may get lost if you share just the file content (e.g.
sharing by sharing file content via paste-bin or GitHub Gists).
[1]
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/new-standard-red-hat-vehicle-operating-system-modern-and-future-vehicles
[2] https://github.com/osbuild/bootc-image-builder
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2908#discussioncomment-8517543
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<rpm-software-management/rpm/repo-discussions/2908/comments/8517...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
