Re: RPM roadmapping

[Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh wantstofly org>]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:42:27PM +0300, 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?

Can you match against the canonical arch, i.e. %{_arch}?

On ARM, we have armv3l, armv4l, armv4tl, armv5tl, armv5tel,
armv5tejl, armv6l, et cetera, but %{_arch} is always just 'arm'.