Peter Jones wrote:
No, Requires: cpu(cmov) breaks nothing, it's just another strcmp to rpm. Your expectations are what is confusing you. Yes, there would be a lotyeah just make the i686 rpms be i386 ones with a Require: cpu(cmov)Ignoring the severe technical problems that it would create (It'd
break _everything_ and be way too much work to implement), how about
.ia32.rpm for everything that is .i386 now and use i?86.rpm for stuff
that requires a specific cpu?
of confusion for a short period of time, but as Arjan has pointed out, there are only a handful of packages that need to carry the dependency.
RPM isn't the only thing that touches files though. Lots of stuff doesn't expect that it'll find 2 i386 packages, so it'll dump them to the same filename. I know it sounds silly, but having the arch difference means it's easy to generate non-colliding filenames.
That's not to say we shouldn't do the "Requires: cpu(cmov)" as _well_, since it could obviously be helpful in many situations.
OK, to summarize:
a) There's a whole lot of pain and not much gain messing with package file names (and file paths and scripts and ... )
b) The dependency
Requires: cpu(cmov)
(or equivalent token) might (*will* imho) be useful identifying packages that actually use, say, cmov.
(Note: there's more than cmov that needs marking, generalizing the cpu(...) name space is quite straightforward.)
c) Users want a clear call on what package file name to install, as some *.i386.rpm will not run on arch i386, very confusing.
d) linuxthreads needs to die! die! die! (but that's just me ;-)
Name your poison (if any) please.
73 de Jeff
