On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 23:36 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote: > 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? ... And dlopen'd libraries aren't the only cases that merit an arch-specific Require. So do Requires for -devel packages. And a subpackage's Require for its main package should be arch-specific, too. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
