As I stated in the review already: Quote from: http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/ArchDependencies Architecture-specific Dependencies On multiarch systems such as x86_64 it would be often desireable to express that a package of compatible architecture is needed to satisfy a dependency. In most of the cases this is already handled by the automatically extracted soname dependencies, but this is not always the case: sometimes it's necessary to disable the automatic dependency generation, and then there are cases where the information cannot be automatically generated, such as -devel package dependencies on other -devel packages and build dependencies. Consider the following: Name: foo ... BuildRequires: libbar-devel >= 2.2 %package devel Requires: libbar-devel >= 2.2 ... This works fine on single-arch systems such as i386, but it's not sufficient on multiarch systems: when building a 32bit package on a 64bit system, a 32bit version of the libbar-devel would be needed, but the above lets libbar-devel.x86_64 satisfy the build dependency too, leading to obscure build failure. Similarly a 32bit libbar-devel would incorrectly satisfy the dependency for a 64bit package. ISA Dependencies In rpm 4.6.0, the concept of ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) was introduced to permit differentiating between 32- and 64-bit versions without resorting to file dependencies on obscure and/or library-version dependent paths. To declare a dependency on a package name architecture specific, append %{?_isa} to the dependency name, eg Requires: libbar-devel%{?_isa} >= 2.2 This will expand to libbar-devel(archfamily-bitness) depending on the build target architecture, for example a native build on x86_64 would give Requires: libbar-devel(x86-64) >= 2.2 but with --target i386 (or i586, i686 etc) it would become Requires: libbar-devel(x86-32) >= 2.2 *** endquote *** > Why so many requires some pacakges without this flag? They were probably created in times of rpm <= 4.6.0 and maintainer didn't fix/update, yet. > Can you tell me a reason why should I add this for this package? The reason for adding the isa-macro (figlet%{?_isa} in this case) is: it's a new package, rpm is >= 4.6.0 and it will prevent trouble for users installing it on multi-arch when having figlet != %{_isa} already installed. -->figlet is an arch-depending-pkg `yum list figlet*` and an explicit Requires for the reviewed package. So therefor it should be `Requires: figlet{?_isa}` afaik. Am Samstag, den 18.05.2013, 21:27 +0800 schrieb Christopher Meng: > Hi, > > > I don't know if RPM can handle the architecture-specific requires > smartly. > > > Now I have a review request: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959029 > > > In fact I've seen many packages without this flag and I don't know if > I still need to add it now. > > > Thanks. > > > > Yours sincerely, > Christopher Meng > > > Always playing in Fedora Project > > http://cicku.me > > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
