[Fedora-packaging] Re: Explicit "Requires" should (usually) be arch-specific
braden at endoframe.com
Thu Sep 17 04:16:54 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 10:06 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com> writes:
> >> > Since apparently a requirement for "foo" can be satisfied by any
> >> > available architecture for which a "foo" is available, "Requires" that
> >> > do not specify the architecture are unsafe for multilib systems (unless
> >> > the dependency really can be satisfied by any architecture--which does
> >> > not strike me as the most common case).
> >> Surely this is a bug, not something that every single specfile must
> >> work around.
> > If it's a bug, then how do you propose a specfile should articulate a
> > "Requires" that *can* be satisfied by any architecture?
> Can be solved with virtual provides (which should not be tied to an
> | Provides: program(%name) = %version-%release
> | %package devel
> | Requires: program(%name) = %version-%release
So you'd want to change the meaning of an unadorned package name in
Requires to imply the same architecture as the same package build? I'm a
little skeptical that will go over well.
Also, the approach you suggest requires buy-in from the dependency (to
provide the virtual package name) and the consequence is a substantial
expansion of the set of virtual package names.
Braden McDaniel <braden at endoframe.com>
More information about the Fedora-packaging