On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 09:53 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > So are you suggesting that yum should look for foobar(somearchspec) and
> > > reinterpret those based on what the local system is?
> >
> > Well, to be fair, I'm just trying to understand where the concern is here.
>
> That's fine - I'm just trying to make sure i'm on the right page here,
> too.
>
>
> > I'm not sure it makes sense for yum to reinterpret SRPM Requires. I
> > suspect there are some potential situations where a spec would want to
> > hardcode:
> >
> > BuildRequires: foo(x86-32)
> >
> > And wouldn't want yum re-evaluating it.
>
> Agreed.
Well, with respect to what to do about a guideline for BuildRequires and
%{?_isa}, I'm back to being confused.
Matthias' comment suggests to me that %{?_isa} should be recommended in
BuildRequires for non-noarch packages; but the ensuing discussion makes
me less certain of that. The result of this uncertainty is that I'm
back to thinking that mention of BuildRequires should be dropped from
this draft and its issues deferred to another one.
--
Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
