On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:26:09 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2007 22:08:59 Matthew Miller wrote: > > How hard is it to get a program added to the blacklist? Festival probably > > should be. And then I should do: > > %ifarch x86_64 > > Obsoletes: festival.i386 < 1.96 > > %endif > > First, I don't think you can reference arch like that in a spec. > > Secondly, why don't you split out the two libs into a festival-libs package, > that is required by festival? festival-devel will pick up the library > requires out of the -libs package, the libs package will have a generic > requires on festival, not an arch specific one. If festival-libs required festival, the split would be pointless as we first would need to create a multi-lib resolver that works like that and implements a well-defined way and/or copies yum's exact behaviour. If foo-devel.i386 requires bar-devel and bar-devel is provided by bar.x86_64 as well as bar.i386, what happens? If foo-devel.i386 requires foo = %version-release, the spec can't require foo.i386, so would foo.x86_64 also be sufficient? The split would be pointless on a single arch, too, as festival-libs would always pull in festival. Unless there is a typo in your comment. > This will leave > festival-devel and festival-libs as multiarch, while festival itself is not. > This is the solution that many other packages use. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
