Re: RPM roadmapping

[Panu Matilainen <pmatilai redhat com>]

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", 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.

	- Panu -