[Fedora-packaging] Re: UPDATED: New draft packaging guidelines for OCaml

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 08:49:51AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> It doesn't address multilib. For example, the -devel packages should
> require ocaml of the _same_ architecture, not just "ocaml".
> 
> In particular, the example that "ocaml-pcre-devel needs an explicit
> 'Requires: pcre-devel'" is wrong, because an i386 pcre-devel package
> would satisfy that, while not being particularly useful for an x86_64
> ocaml-pcre-devel.

Right -- I now understand the problem.  See for example my email here:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00105.html

What I _don't_ understand is how to fix this ...  Obviously bug 235755
("rpm doesn't allow 'Requires: foo.%{ARCH}'") would be an ideal fix.
In the absence of that can someone suggest a workable scheme?

I can add file deps, I think, to solve this:

  In ocaml-pcre-devel:
    Requires: %{_libdir}/ocaml/pcre/  (get the right ocaml-pcre)
    Requires: %{_libdir}/libpcre.a    (instead of pcre-devel)

would seem to fix this, at the cost of downloading the filelists.

> Because of bug #235755 you may need to use virtual provides or
> file-based dependencies to express the dependencies correctly.
> Unless we put 235755 on the F9Blocker... :)

For reference:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235755

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v