On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:29:25PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > Actually its not even the source repository layout which is broken > > (it'd be insane to duplicate all the source for every arch just > > because src.rpm headers differ between arches), its the assumption > > that the metadata from such a repository can meaningfully be used for > > evaluating build-requires that is broken. > > > > While we're at this (again): there are no guarantees that even the > > payload of an src.rpm is arch-independent, its trivial to create > > constructs where included sources and patches differ depending on > > what architecture an src.rpm was built. If people are worrying about > > src.rpm arch independence, THAT is what should be banned in the > > guidelines. > > > <nod> That sounds like a good thing regardless of the rest of the > discussion and unlike contemplating conditionals on BuildRequires, there > should be no place where conditionals on payload is needed (the conditional > logic can be moved to %prep where the pieces of the payload are used > instead). > > Created a proposed draft here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/306 It's a good addition to the guidelines. I could swear we've had it as a topic years ago, likely just in a discussion related to %ifarch x86_64 and ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch usage. -- Michael Schwendt Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux 3.9.5-301.fc19.x86_64 loadavg: 1.01 1.24 0.58 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
