RPM roadmapping

[dragoran]

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 ?