Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> Well, with some delay, the waiver worked and I was able to push the
> f26 package to batched.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>>> OpenBabel is a runtime dependency for some optional features of
>>> Molsketch. The %{_isa} macro got added during the review
>>
>> I think the reviewer in this case was wrong to suggest that, just use
>> Requires: openbabel
>
> I am asking because the rpm documentation leaves quite a lot to be
> desired. If I went and changed all my "Requires: foo" to "Requires:
> foo%{_isa}" in all my non-noarch packages, would I be plain wrong, or
> is it justifiable - albeit an overkill?
the only place I recall seeing recommendation to use %{_isa} is in subpkg
dependencies.
IMO, It's wrong to use in general, unless you have good reason to do so. Do
you?
> We had some long discussions with the reviewer and the upstream
> developer as to what could/should be in the -devel subpackage and I
> ended up with what's there. I was wondering why the subpackage was not
> to be noarch, but then I found this in our guidelines:
>
> Do not use noarch
>
> It may be tempting to make the header library package noarch, since
> the header files themselves are simply text. However, a library should
> have tests which should be run on all architectures. Also, the install
> process may modify the installed headers depending on the build
> architecture. For these reasons, header-only packages must not be
> marked noarch.
>
>
> Upstream is working on a testsuite, so at some point down the road I
> will (probably) need it as it is.
That's fair.
Another alternative: don't make -devel depend on the main package (which is
ok for headers-only situations like this)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
