RPM roadmapping
Panu Matilainen
pmatilai at redhat.com
Thu Aug 2 10:08:49 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, dragoran wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, dragoran wrote:
>>
>>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, dragoran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not everybody is on rpm-maint list and we'd like to hear the wishes of
>>>>>> (Fedora) developers/packagers too. So: what have you always wanted to
>>>>>> do with rpm, but wasn't able to? Or the other way around: what you
>>>>>> always wished rpm would do for you? What always annoyed you out of your
>>>>>> mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> arch requires and provides ... to end the endless multilib discussions
>>>>> ;)
>>>>> should be automatic until the packager say Requires: foo.arch
>>>>
>>>> I wish it was that simple...
>>>>
>>>> Sure, being able to say "Requires: foo.arch = version-release" would help
>>>> in many cases, but it does not *solve* the multilib problems.
>>>>
>>>> A big offender here is the x86 architecture with i386, i486 ... etc
>>>> subarchitectures. While most packages are i386 there, the assumed
>>> what about being able to say foo.i?86
>>
>> What about foo.athlon which is also a 32bit arch?
>>
>> And don't suggest "Requires: foo.i?86 || foo.athlon",
> this is just ugly so no.
>> because then you'd have monsters like this in each and every spec:
>>
>> %ifarch %{ix86}
>> Requires: foo.i?86 || foo.athlon
>> %fi
>> %ifarch x86_64
>> Requires: foo.x86_64
>> %fi
>> ...
>>
>> The exact %{arch} is not the point at all here.
>>
> ok thats indeed the wrong way to solve it.
> what about forgot about the arch names and say foo.64bit or foo.32bit ?
Well that's more or less what I was suggesting :)
Only you can't have Requires: foo.64bit etc hardcoded in the spec for the
same reason as above: otherwise you'd have ugly arch conditionals all over
the specs. It must be something that's automatically expanded to correct
value at build time.
- Panu -
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list