Florian, Eric,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Florian La Roche wrote:
> > ... but sure you knew all that and if this was not
> > your point it would be more helpful if you would
> > come out and explain in little more detail what's
> > going on and what you are after, please.
>
> The BuildRequires are _all_ being looked at, "ifarch" or other tries
> to limit them to special cases does not work.
>
Hmmm... well, which version of the rpm are you
referring? Old ones or the current and are there
differencies between architechtures or what?
Please go ahead and try yourself adding to some
of your current package the line
%{?foo:BuildRequires: bar}
and then rebuilding with "--define foo=1" and
without definition, I'm sure you can see the
difference as well as with %ifarch I posted
earlier (yes, it does work indeed to :)
I don't have currently here too many old
Red Hat systems to test with, but this is
the case with at least current rpm-4.0.4-7x-18
from 7.3.
I'm not claiming that it wasn't once like
you said, but currently it's different story
like that if it is non recommend practise...
that's fine with mee too if that is policy.
Also what's the story of BuildPrereq: ? It's
been frequently used by quite a many packages
but how that is different from BuilRequires?
TIA,
:-) riku
ps. Is this a bug or a feature if it works
for you too? Bugzilla?
--
[ This .signature intentionally left blank ]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
Redhat-devel-list@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
