On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 14:18 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:04:07PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > As Bill said - the whitelist is just pain to maintain. So, if we want > > something like this then we make it a tag at the rpm level. Heck, you > > can have it be a rather innocuous provides that we could hack into yum > > to look for: > > > > Provides: look-for-i386-too > > The i386 Gtk IM plugins wouldn't be used if gtk2.i386 isn't installed, > right? Similarly PAM i386 modules aren't needed when pam.i386 isn't > installed and NSS i386 modules when glibc.i[36]86 isn't installed. > In that case it would be best if this kind of dependency was somehow encoded > in the packages, rather than just forcing installation of unneeded i386 > packages. You'll note the default behavior in F9 is not install any i386 pkgs unless explicitly asked for (or as a dependency). If you want to have dependencies have arch-specific information in them then, again, we need to talk about that at the rpm layer. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
