On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 21:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Surely this is a bug, not something that every single specfile must > >> work around. > > > If it's a bug, then how do you propose a specfile should articulate a > > "Requires" that *can* be satisfied by any architecture? > > Why would it need to? Because there's no reason to specify the architecture if it truly doesn't matter. For instance, if my package runs an executable, I probably don't care whether the executable was built for i686 or x86_64. On the other hand, if my package dlopen's a library, I probably do care. > I should only have to require "foo", I should > not have to know whether foo comes in arch-specific or arch-independent > form. It will always *come* in an arch-specific form--which is why it's important to specify the right one when it matters. > It should be up to the buildsystem to acquire the version that > is most appropriate for the target arch being built. If you're using "Requires", the build system is most likely irrelevant. "Requires" tends to be for things that are resolved at run time. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
