[Fedora-packaging] Explicit "Requires" should (usually) be arch-specific

[Braden McDaniel]

On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 23:36 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote: 
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 22:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 
> > Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> writes:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 21:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 
> > >> Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> writes:
> > >>> If it's a bug, then how do you propose a specfile should articulate a
> > >>> "Requires" that *can* be satisfied by any architecture?
> > >> 
> > >> Why would it need to?
> > 
> > > Because there's no reason to specify the architecture if it truly
> > > doesn't matter.
> > 
> > Indeed.
> > 
> > > For instance, if my package runs an executable, I
> > > probably don't care whether the executable was built for i686 or x86_64.
> > > On the other hand, if my package dlopen's a library, I probably do care.
> > 
> > Well, for separate executables you shouldn't have to care.  For ordinary
> > library bindings, the appropriate require is generated by RPM and the
> > packager need not worry about it.  I concede that dlopen'd libraries
> > might need arch-specific Requires, but that's hardly such a common case
> > as to motivate a recommendation that Requires should "usually" be
> > arch-specific.
> 
> It's a sufficiently common case that the packaging guidelines use it as
> an example for explicit Requires.
> 
> Is there a more common case for explicit Requires (used by non-noarch
> packages) that I'm overlooking?

... And dlopen'd libraries aren't the only cases that merit an
arch-specific Require.  So do Requires for -devel packages.  And a
subpackage's Require for its main package should be arch-specific, too.

-- 
Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com>