-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change all examples to x86_64 #38
Conversation
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ Say your Electron app lives in `path/to/app`, and has a structure like this: | |||
You now run `electron-packager` to build the app for Red Hat: | |||
|
|||
``` | |||
$ electron-packager . app --platform linux --arch x64 --out dist/ | |||
$ electron-packager . app --platform linux --arch x86_64 --out dist/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
electron-packager
is an external project, and it doesn't take x86_64
for its arch
flag. Check it out here: https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-packager/blob/master/usage.txt#L20
All other changes look good to me. Can you think of any problems that could derive of this change? |
As far as I know, all RPM based distros expect “x86_64”. I can’t foresee any issues here; this change just makes the documentation follow what is already done in the examples and tests elsewhere in this repository. Installing a package as “amd64” (as you’ll get with the current documentation) causes package managers like yum and dnf to complain and refuse to install them. Force-installing such a amd64.rpm package with the rpm tool works, but the package can’t be upgraded later and can make dnf complain if users try to remove any of the dependencies required by the unknown architecture.. These problems arose on the Brave bug tracker because they used your tool and blindly followed the documentation when creating the RPMs. |
Fair enough, sorry about having caused trouble... 😅 Would you mind squashing the two commits (keeping the original commit message)? I'll merge immediately after you do. |
The Red Hat/RPM world expect packages to be called “x86_64.rpm”. Fixing the examples in README.md to match the other test cases and examples.
Here you go. (Doesn’t GitHub have a squash and merge button these days?) |
You are right. I hadn't enabled it for this repo. Thank you! |
The Red Hat/RPM world expect packages to be called “x86_64.rpm”.
Fixing the examples in README.md to match the other test cases and examples.