On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 07:59 +0300, 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.
>
If srpms are not arch independent then they need to stop being created
as .src.rpm. I know that they have the arch of what platform they were
built on stored in the arch tag internally. I also know that if the
assumption that src.rpm's are not arch independent is now no longer
accurate then a lot of tooling has to change.
I'm sure the following is what you'll say:
"well, we never made any promises about that and they do have an arch
contained in them."
That's great - I'm glad we are getting into the legal details of what
was or was not committed to and not, instead, focusing on what we're
doing to what we need srpms to do.
If srpms are not arch-independent do you mean to say that we need to
create separate srpms for each arch we build on?
-sv
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
