Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820561 --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-10 09:05:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > I don't follow you there. On a multilib system with non-isa build requirement > you can have foo-devel.i686 when building for x86_64 - and that will fail. Not all packages are always built on multiarch systems with all the targets. For this particular setup I would go only with the native libraries and executables as there's no point in having an i686 package on x86_64. >From what I've seen, most of the packages are done this way in Fedora: %package name Summary: blah blah blah Requires: something-devel And they have instead _isa requirements for packages that do not include any binary, like the devel packages that usually contain only a symlink: %package devel Summary: Development files for %{name} Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Should I change all the BuildRequires that I have in all the packages I mantain? As an example, here is a long BuildRequires section: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=bacula.git;a=blob;f=bacula.spec;h=7454def475d46071a05566260e10c61d698d8c26;hb=HEAD > It seems like it would be simpler if upstream shipped all components in one > package. ;-) Well, they also shipped binary packages for Fedora but kept all the spec files for themselves :D Thanks for your time. --Simone -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review