https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1111691 --- Comment #43 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- Super good job on the updates! :) > Requires: %{name}-libqore%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > Requires: %{name}-stdlib%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} To make the main package fully "meta", there should be lines like these for all of the subpackages. Also, I think the libqore package is actually called just "libqore". At least that's how Koji built it and that's what I see in my local mock environment as well. > This leads to the following error; I assume a noarch pkg should not depend on an arch-specific package: > > BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different architectures: qore-misc-tools-0.9.4.6-1.fc33.noarch.rpm > > rpmdiff output was: > > removed REQUIRES qore(armv7hl-32) = 0.9.4.6-1.fc33 > > added REQUIRES qore(x86-32) = 0.9.4.6-1.fc33 You're completely right. It only works for the opposite - an arch package depending on a noarch package. What you can do is make qore-misc-tools depend on only a subset of the qore subpackages - the ones it actually requires. I guess that would be "libqore" primarily? > %install > %make_install -p > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{module_dir} > rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libqore.la If you look closely, the last 2 paths will contain duplicate forward slashes. Not a big thing, but the below should be okay: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{module_dir} rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/libqore.la > %files -n libqore > %{_libdir}/libqore.so.6.2.1 > %{_libdir}/libqore.so.6 > %license COPYING.LGPL COPYING.GPL COPYING.MIT > %doc README.md README-LICENSE README-MODULES RELEASE-NOTES AUTHORS ABOUT I think the README-LICENSE file is actually a license file with extra commentary so it should be listed together with the other license files with the %license macro. Also, since qore is multi-licensed and highly modular, I would add README-LICENSE to the -devel and -misc-tools subpackages. > %changelog > [...] > - replaced %{_datarootdir} with ${_datadir} > [...] > - removed obsolete references to %defattr and ldconfig > - use %make_build instead of a hardcoded make line > - use %make_install -p instead of a hardcoded make install line Minor nitpick, you should avoid using macros in %changelog records or escape them by repeating the macro character (for instance, %%make_build instead of %make_build). > * Thu Jul 30 2020 David Nichols <david@xxxxxxxx> 0.9.4.5-1 > - added required BuildRequires for gcc-c++ I think the dist tag on this one was supposed to be 2 (full version 0.9.4.5-2), right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
