On 07/08/2010 06:59 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 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.
Explicit %_isa in any "*requires:" breaks updates when a package changes
its architecture (noarch <-> "arch").
My recommendation is to not use "explicit %_isa" unless really, really
necessary (i.e. almost never).
Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
