On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 22:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 21:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> 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. > > Indeed. > > > 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. > > Well, for separate executables you shouldn't have to care. For ordinary > library bindings, the appropriate require is generated by RPM and the > packager need not worry about it. I concede that dlopen'd libraries > might need arch-specific Requires, but that's hardly such a common case > as to motivate a recommendation that Requires should "usually" be > arch-specific. It's a sufficiently common case that the packaging guidelines use it as an example for explicit Requires. Is there a more common case for explicit Requires (used by non-noarch packages) that I'm overlooking? -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
