[Fedora-packaging] arched BuildRequires?

Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com
Fri Jun 14 19:16:44 UTC 2013

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:27:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 03:29:25PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > 
> > Actually its not even the source repository layout which is broken
> > (it'd be insane to duplicate all the source for every arch just
> > because src.rpm headers differ between arches), its the assumption
> > that the metadata from such a repository can meaningfully be used for
> > evaluating build-requires that is broken.
> > 
> > While we're at this (again): there are no guarantees that even the
> > payload of an src.rpm is arch-independent, its trivial to create
> > constructs where included sources and patches differ depending on
> > what architecture an src.rpm was built. If people are worrying about
> > src.rpm arch independence, THAT is what should be banned in the
> > guidelines.
> > 
> <nod>  That sounds like a good thing regardless of the rest of the
> discussion and unlike contemplating conditionals on BuildRequires, there
> should be no place where conditionals on payload is needed (the conditional
> logic can be moved to %prep where the pieces of the payload are used
> instead).
> Created a proposed draft here: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/306

It's a good addition to the guidelines. I could swear we've had it as a
topic years ago, likely just in a discussion related to %ifarch x86_64 and
ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch usage.

Michael Schwendt
Fedora release 19 (Schrödinger’s Cat) - Linux 3.9.5-301.fc19.x86_64
loadavg: 1.01 1.24 0.58

More information about the packaging mailing list