On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 10:06 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 19:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com> writes:
>> > Since apparently a requirement for "foo" can be satisfied by any
>> > available architecture for which a "foo" is available,
>> > do not specify the architecture are unsafe for multilib systems (unless
>> > the dependency really can be satisfied by any architecture--which does
>> > not strike me as the most common case).
>> Surely this is a bug, not something that every single specfile must
>> work around.
> If it's a bug, then how do you propose a specfile should articulate a
> "Requires" that *can* be satisfied by any architecture?
Can be solved with virtual provides (which should not be tied to an
| Provides: program(%name) = %version-%release
| %package devel
| Requires: program(%name) = %version-%release
So you'd want to change the meaning of an unadorned package name in
Requires to imply the same architecture as the same package build? I'm a
little skeptical that will go over well.
Also, the approach you suggest requires buy-in from the dependency (to
provide the virtual package name) and the consequence is a substantial
expansion of the set of virtual package names.
Braden McDaniel <braden(a)endoframe.com>