[Fedora-packaging] Explicit "Requires" should (usually) be arch-specific
tgl at redhat.com
Wed Sep 16 02:32:37 UTC 2009
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.
> 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
regards, tom lane
More information about the Fedora-packaging