On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 01:01 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: [snip] > 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > I suggest tweaking the examples to include the (epoch and) version and release > for consistency with the above. I've added a section that articulates specific changes to the Guidelines, including this one. > 3) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages > Because Provides are not ISA qualified by default, both ISA qualified and non- > qualified Provides should be added where applicable and appropriate when > replacing or splitting packages in order to not break dependencies. I suggest > noting this both in this draft and the above NamingGuidelines entry. I'm not sure this is the Right Thing in all cases. Certainly if a package's consumables can be used in a way that is not arch-specific, there should be a Provide that *is not* arch-specific. Similarly, there should be an arch-specific Provide only if the consumables can (also) be used in a way that *is* arch-specific. But continuing to supply an arch-independent Provide just to avoid breaking dependencies is not appropriate, I think. Spec files that are using arch-independent Provides for things that get used in arch-specific ways are broken and need fixing (with respect to this proposal). While it may be true that (part of) the reason for this brokenness is that arch-specific Provides are not currently generally available, I think that just means that suppliers of such Provides and their consumers need to be fixed together. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
