On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Cornec, Bruno (Open Source and Linux
Technology Architect) wrote:
Bob Gobeille said on Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 06:40:03PM -0600:
For example, you have:
rpms/1.1.0/centos/4/
which contains both .i386.rpm and .x86-64.rpm.
I know Bryan does separate arch, but I don't see the need myself. Any
concrete example why we should ?
Also it allows to provide the src.rpm in the same place, which is
technically and from a license perspective interesting IMHO.
Bryan, Bruno,
I thought I explained the reasons for having the arch - if we combine
them in the same directory and a user doesn't specify the entire rpm
name, they will install BOTH the x86-64 and the i386 rpm's. Since we
build these to be independent, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
By separating them, the user only needs to yum install fossology.
The distro, version and arch are specified in their yum conf file.
Bruno, what am I missing?
Bob Gobeille
_______________________________________________
fossology mailing list
[email protected]
http://fossology.org/mailman/listinfo/fossology
