Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820561 --- Comment #5 from Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> 2012-05-10 09:22:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > I don't follow you there. On a multilib system with non-isa build > > requirement > > you can have foo-devel.i686 when building for x86_64 - and that will fail. > > Not all packages are always built on multiarch systems with all the targets. > For this particular setup I would go only with the native libraries and > executables as there's no point in having an i686 package on x86_64. Other people might however have different setups where they do have multilib - and that should work too. > From what I've seen, most of the packages are done this way in Fedora: > > %package name > Summary: blah blah blah > Requires: something-devel > > And they have instead _isa requirements for packages that do not include any > binary, like the devel packages that usually contain only a symlink: > > %package devel > Summary: Development files for %{name} > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} I think the observation is correct, but I doubt there is the causality and intent that you state. > Should I change all the BuildRequires that I have in all the packages I > mantain? IMO the guidelines are a bit too vague here. They can't describe all potential problems, but I think they should be more explicit that explicit isa must be specified if the platform must match. Non-isa requirements should IMO only be used in cases where the required package is noarch or exposes a noarch "api". Many existing packages have potential problems in this area, but it would be nice to not introduce it in new places. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
