Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Since apparently a requirement for "foo" can be satisfied by any >> > available architecture for which a "foo" is available, "Requires" that >> > do not specify the architecture are unsafe for multilib systems (unless >> > the dependency really can be satisfied by any architecture--which does >> > not strike me as the most common case). >> >> 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? Can be solved with virtual provides (which should not be tied to an architecture): | Provides: program(%name) = %version-%release | | %package devel | Requires: program(%name) = %version-%release Enrico -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
