On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 01:01 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
[snip]
2)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
I suggest tweaking the examples to include the (epoch and) version and release
for consistency with the above.
I've added a section that articulates specific changes to the
Guidelines, including this one.
3)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Frepl...
Because Provides are not ISA qualified by default, both ISA qualified and non-
qualified Provides should be added where applicable and appropriate when
replacing or splitting packages in order to not break dependencies. I suggest
noting this both in this draft and the above NamingGuidelines entry.
I'm not sure this is the Right Thing in all cases. Certainly if a
package's consumables can be used in a way that is not arch-specific,
there should be a Provide that *is not* arch-specific. Similarly, there
should be an arch-specific Provide only if the consumables can (also) be
used in a way that *is* arch-specific.
But continuing to supply an arch-independent Provide just to avoid
breaking dependencies is not appropriate, I think. Spec files that are
using arch-independent Provides for things that get used in
arch-specific ways are broken and need fixing (with respect to this
proposal). While it may be true that (part of) the reason for this
brokenness is that arch-specific Provides are not currently generally
available, I think that just means that suppliers of such Provides and
their consumers need to be fixed together.
--
Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com>