On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:44:53 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: > tor 2013-06-13 klockan 19:20 +0200 skrev Björn Esser: > > > What will break the spec by removing _isa-macro from BRs? Is there any > > PROVEN reason for this? I'm NOT talking about the final-Requires in > > spec. > > It is VERY EASY to construct such an example. Sure, that's the known corner-case for multiarch installations. It's similar for any arch-conditional build requirements in spec files. They are a bit of a hindrance, since one cannot rely on a downloaded src.rpm's Requires being complete. Unless one rebuilds the src.rpm first and then proceeds with the changed list of possibly arch-specific Requires in the freshly built src.rpm (e.g. as Mock does it before fetching the build requirements). Only then one can query the src.rpm with tools to install a long list of needed builddeps. > Consider a package containing the following BRs: > > BuildRequires: nss-devel >= 3.10 > BuildRequires: openssl-devel > BuildRequires: cppunit-devel > BuildRequires: glibmm24-devel > BuildRequires: libdb-cxx-devel > > All the BRs are satisfied: > > $ rpm -q --whatprovides nss-devel openssl-devel cppunit-devel > glibmm24-devel libdb-cxx-devel > nss-devel-3.14.3-2.fc18.i686 > openssl-devel-1.0.1e-4.fc18.x86_64 > cppunit-devel-1.12.1-8.fc18.x86_64 > glibmm24-devel-2.34.1-1.fc18.x86_64 > libdb-cxx-devel-5.3.21-3.fc18.i686 Except for the minimum build environment, such as glibc-devel.i686 and libstdc++-devel.i686, the compiler(s) and preprocessor(s). The build would fail later on. %_isa in BRs here is like band-aid for a more fundamental problem, and it adds even another problem. Oh, btw, not even all -devel dependencies use %_isa yet. On a normal x86_64 installation, installing something -devel.i686 often pulls in x86_64 deps. For your example, nss-devel.i686 will do that, too. %_isa would be needed in many many more places for multiarch operation. > rpmbuild correctly detects the missing BRs: > > error: Failed build dependencies: > nss-devel(x86-64) >= 3.10 is needed by canl-c++-1.0.0-2.fc18.x86_64 > libdb-cxx-devel(x86-64) is needed by canl-c++-1.0.0-2.fc18.x86_64 Don't we prefer clean build environments, such as constructed by Mock? I know some people use "setarch i686 rpmbuild ..." and "setarch i686 yum ...", which accesses the full i386 repos on x86_64 installations. Conclusively, I understand what you like about %_isa in BR, but I think it doesn't improve much compared with the confusion it adds. -- Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux 3.9.5-301.fc19.x86_64 loadavg: 0.10 0.35 0.29 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
