On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 21:50 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> _isa in BuildRequires doesn't work atm. and shouldn't be used. There
> are possible fixes, but all of them are non-trivial.
"Doesn't work" is, err, rather vague.
ISA in BuildRequires works just fine (buildsys and all). BUT using it in
Fedora infrastructure breaks the SRPM repository & its users (like
yum-builddep) which are built under the assumption SRPMs are
arch-independent.
- Panu -
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
