Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 13, 2016
Merged

Change all examples to x86_64 #38

merged 1 commit into from Oct 13, 2016

Conversation

da2x
Copy link
Contributor

@da2x da2x commented Oct 12, 2016

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.

@@ -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/
Copy link
Collaborator

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

@unindented
Copy link
Collaborator

All other changes look good to me. Can you think of any problems that could derive of this change?

@da2x
Copy link
Contributor Author

da2x commented Oct 13, 2016

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.

@unindented
Copy link
Collaborator

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.
@da2x
Copy link
Contributor Author

da2x commented Oct 13, 2016

Here you go. (Doesn’t GitHub have a squash and merge button these days?)

@unindented unindented merged commit 664ac38 into electron-userland:master Oct 13, 2016
@unindented
Copy link
Collaborator

You are right. I hadn't enabled it for this repo. Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants