On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 04:16 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 01:01 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: [snip] > > 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. Actually... Wouldn't "Requires: foo" be satisfied by either "Provides: foo.i386" or "Provides: foo.x86_64"? Or am I mistaken about this? -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
