On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 09:32 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 12 avril 2007 09:06, seth vidal a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 09:55 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>
> >> > Orion Poplawski (orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> >> >> Here's a question. Should -devel package requirements be of the
> >> form:
> >> >>
> >> >> Requires: package-devel.%{arch}
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't work, so... no.
> >>
> >> Doesn't work, but interesting timing :)
> >> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-devel/2007-April/002260.html
> >>
> >
> > I'd like to offer a HELL NO in reference to that syntax.
>
> Please someone explain JBJ that spec syntax must be parseable by humans,
> and Arch(foo) will only make packagers try Version(foo).
>
> Sanity demands foo(arch=x and version >y) if he wants packagers to
> tokenize EVR for him
how about arch >= i386
so that would include x86_64, too, right? :)
/me runs
-sv
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
