Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Well, with some delay, the waiver worked and I was able to push the
f26 package to batched.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>> OpenBabel is a runtime dependency for some optional features of
>> Molsketch. The %{_isa} macro got added during the review
>
> I think the reviewer in this case was wrong to suggest that, just use
> Requires: openbabel
I am asking because the rpm documentation leaves quite a lot to be
desired. If I went and changed all my "Requires: foo" to "Requires:
foo%{_isa}" in all my non-noarch packages, would I be plain wrong, or
is it justifiable - albeit an overkill?
the only place I recall seeing recommendation to use %{_isa} is in subpkg
dependencies.
IMO, It's wrong to use in general, unless you have good reason to do so. Do
you?
We had some long discussions with the reviewer and the upstream
developer as to what could/should be in the -devel subpackage and I
ended up with what's there. I was wondering why the subpackage was not
to be noarch, but then I found this in our guidelines:
Do not use noarch
It may be tempting to make the header library package noarch, since
the header files themselves are simply text. However, a library should
have tests which should be run on all architectures. Also, the install
process may modify the installed headers depending on the build
architecture. For these reasons, header-only packages must not be
marked noarch.
Upstream is working on a testsuite, so at some point down the road I
will (probably) need it as it is.
That's fair.
Another alternative: don't make -devel depend on the main package (which is
ok for headers-only situations like this)