On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 23:36 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 22:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 21:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com> writes:
> >>> If it's a bug, then how do you propose a specfile should articulate
> >>> "Requires" that *can* be satisfied by any architecture?
> >> Why would it need to?
> > Because there's no reason to specify the architecture if it truly
> > doesn't matter.
> > For instance, if my package runs an executable, I
> > probably don't care whether the executable was built for i686 or x86_64.
> > On the other hand, if my package dlopen's a library, I probably do care.
> Well, for separate executables you shouldn't have to care. For ordinary
> library bindings, the appropriate require is generated by RPM and the
> packager need not worry about it. I concede that dlopen'd libraries
> might need arch-specific Requires, but that's hardly such a common case
> as to motivate a recommendation that Requires should "usually" be
It's a sufficiently common case that the packaging guidelines use it as
an example for explicit Requires.
Is there a more common case for explicit Requires (used by non-noarch
packages) that I'm overlooking?
... And dlopen'd libraries aren't the only cases that merit an
arch-specific Require. So do Requires for -devel packages. And a
subpackage's Require for its main package should be arch-specific, too.
Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com>