Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, dragoran wrote:
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, dragoran wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
And don't suggest "Requires: foo.i?86 || foo.athlon",
this is just
ugly so no.
because then you'd have monsters like this in each and every
spec:
%ifarch %{ix86}
Requires: foo.i?86 || foo.athlon
%fi
%ifarch x86_64
Requires: foo.x86_64
%fi
...
The exact %{arch} is not the point at all here.
ok thats indeed the wrong way to solve it.
what about forgot about the arch names and say foo.64bit or foo.32bit ?