RPM roadmapping

[dragoran]

Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, dragoran wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>
> Well that's more or less what I was suggesting :)
>
;)
> Only you can't have Requires: foo.64bit etc hardcoded in the spec for 
> the same reason as above: otherwise you'd have ugly arch conditionals 
> all over the specs. It must be something that's automatically expanded 
> to correct value at build time.
>
was thinking the same whe need something like foo.%{32_64bit*}

*better name needed here ....