Re: RFC: Dropping %{?_isa} hack

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 01/18/2018 11:50 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hello,

Does anybody know why we are still using %{?_isa} thing?

DNF/libsolv forcefully install 64bit package for any 32bit package in
transaction. So it is not possible to get 32bit package without 64bit
counterpart.

So then what's the reason of using %{?_isa}? Just some old cruft from yum era?
Can we drop it? Thoughts?

%{_isa} is there to express very real dependencies where plain NEVR is ambiguous and insufficient. Just because dnf/libsolv/yum whatever might do the right thing by heuristics when installing doesn't mean the dependency is not there (think 'rpm -e <pkg>' for one)

Also history has shown over and over again that depsolver heuristics get confused with multilib'ed package splits and things like partial push with missing multilib arch gets pushed to repos.

	- Panu -
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux