[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: what makes a package get i386 on x86_64?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:26:09 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Thursday 15 March 2007 22:08:59 Matthew Miller wrote:
> > How hard is it to get a program added to the blacklist? Festival probably
> > should be. And then I should do:
> > %ifarch x86_64
> > Obsoletes: festival.i386 < 1.96
> > %endif
> First, I don't think you can reference arch like that in a spec.
> Secondly, why don't you split out the two libs into a festival-libs package, 
> that is required by festival?  festival-devel will pick up the library 
> requires out of the -libs package, the libs package will have a generic 
> requires on festival, not an arch specific one.

If festival-libs required festival, the split would be pointless as we
first would need to create a multi-lib resolver that works like that
and implements a well-defined way and/or copies yum's exact behaviour.

If foo-devel.i386 requires bar-devel and bar-devel is provided by bar.x86_64
as well as bar.i386, what happens?

If foo-devel.i386 requires foo = %version-release, the spec can't require
foo.i386, so would foo.x86_64 also be sufficient?

The split would be pointless on a single arch, too, as festival-libs
would always pull in festival. Unless there is a typo in your comment.

> This will leave 
> festival-devel and festival-libs as multiarch, while festival itself is not.  
> This is the solution that many other packages use.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]