On 2016-06-08, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/06/16 08:38 +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>On 2016-06-08, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 08/06/16 07:37 +0000, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>>>Guidelines require devel packages to be architecture specific (no
>>>>BuildArch: noarch). Guidelines require having dependencies between
>>>>architecture specific packages restricted to the architecture
>>>>(Requires: foo-devel%{?_isa}). C guildelines require depending on "gcc"
>>>>for standard C library header files.
>>>>
>>>>Files in devel packages usually include standard C library header
>>>>files, thus one needs to "Require: gcc%{?_isa}" from the devel packages.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>Because "#include <stdlib.h>" fails without stdlib.h on the system,
>>you need to depend on something that provides the stdlib.h. And
>>guidelines says the provider is "gcc".
>
> So you should require gcc, not gcc%{?_isa}
>
And what about all the %{?_isa} recommendations in the main guidelines
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines> (search for the
string, it's scattered over all the text)?
Should I interpret the C guidelines in such way that the %_isa rules do not
apply to them because, ehm, gcc is special?
>>> I can see how you might need libstdc++-devel%{?_isa} or other
>>> components of GCC, but those *are* multilibbed, so you can have both
>>> libstdc++-devel.i686 and libstdc++-devel.x86_64 installed at the same
>>> time.
>>>
>>Last I was those are implementation details and I should depend on GCC
>>instead. You should know because you were involved in the discussion
>>that leads to the C packaging guidelines.
>
> The guidelines say:
>
> "You need not include a BuildRequires or Requires on glibc-headers, or
> any other core C or C++ implementation package unless you have a
> specific and special need"
>
> A 64-bit package which requires 32-bit compilation seems like a fairly
> specific need, so it seems reasonable to require glibc-headers.i686
> directly in that case (or more accurately, glibc-headers%{arch32}
> where that macro is set appropriately).
>
> What other problems are you trying to solve?
>
The basic motivation for %{?_isa} is to prevent from mixing primary and
secondary multilib packages. It was shown package managers are not good
in enforcing primary architecture. Therefore the %{?_isa} rule was set
in place.
> In any case, the solution is not to make gcc multilib-installable (as
> has been explained repeatedly, that isn't useful, the 'gcc' binaries
> installed by gcc.x86_64 already support 32-bit compilation perfectly
> well).
If this is so, I will go to FPC with request the ammend the C guidelines
with explicit discourage of %{?_isa} on gcc because the main
architecture supports the secondary targets and because gcc is not
multilib safe.
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
