On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 04:16 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 01:01 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
[snip]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplaci... Because Provides are not ISA qualified by default, both ISA qualified and non- qualified Provides should be added where applicable and appropriate when replacing or splitting packages in order to not break dependencies. I suggest noting this both in this draft and the above NamingGuidelines entry.
I'm not sure this is the Right Thing in all cases. Certainly if a package's consumables can be used in a way that is not arch-specific, there should be a Provide that *is not* arch-specific. Similarly, there should be an arch-specific Provide only if the consumables can (also) be used in a way that *is* arch-specific.
Actually... Wouldn't "Requires: foo" be satisfied by either "Provides: foo.i386" or "Provides: foo.x86_64"? Or am I mistaken about this?