On 07/08/2010 06:59 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 21:50 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
Well, with respect to what to do about a guideline for BuildRequires and %{?_isa}, I'm back to being confused.
Matthias' comment suggests to me that %{?_isa} should be recommended in BuildRequires for non-noarch packages; but the ensuing discussion makes me less certain of that. The result of this uncertainty is that I'm back to thinking that mention of BuildRequires should be dropped from this draft and its issues deferred to another one.
_isa in BuildRequires doesn't work atm. and shouldn't be used. There are possible fixes, but all of them are non-trivial.
"Doesn't work" is, err, rather vague.
ISA in BuildRequires works just fine (buildsys and all). BUT using it in Fedora infrastructure breaks the SRPM repository& its users (like yum-builddep) which are built under the assumption SRPMs are arch-independent.
Explicit %_isa in any "*requires:" breaks updates when a package changes its architecture (noarch <-> "arch").
My recommendation is to not use "explicit %_isa" unless really, really necessary (i.e. almost never).
Ralf