On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:42:27PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>>> Not everybody is on rpm-maint list and we'd like to hear the
wishes of
>>>>> (Fedora) developers/packagers too. So: what have you always wanted
to
>>>>> do with rpm, but wasn't able to? Or the other way around: what
you
>>>>> always wished rpm would do for you? What always annoyed you out of
your
>>>>> mind?
>>>>
>>>> arch requires and provides ... to end the endless multilib discussions
;)
>>>> should be automatic until the packager say Requires: foo.arch
>>>
>>> I wish it was that simple...
>>>
>>> Sure, being able to say "Requires: foo.arch = version-release"
would help
>>> in many cases, but it does not *solve* the multilib problems.
>>>
>>> A big offender here is the x86 architecture with i386, i486 ... etc
>>> subarchitectures. While most packages are i386 there, the assumed
>> what about being able to say foo.i?86
>
> What about foo.athlon which is also a 32bit arch?
Can you match against the canonical arch, i.e. %{_arch}?
On ARM, we have armv3l, armv4l, armv4tl, armv5tl, armv5tel,
armv5tejl, armv6l, et cetera, but %{_arch} is always just 'arm'.
That'd probably work for i386 and x86_64 but I wonder how ppc vs ppc64
behaves with %{_arch} ?
My dislike with that is it overloads the meaning of arch. Consider a
package for which i386 and i686 package is available, both would then
provide foo.i386. Confusing and problematic, at least in the cases where
you want (additional) dependency on %{_target_cpu}.
- Panu -