On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:39:13 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote:
fre 2013-06-14 klockan 15:07 +0200 skrev Michael Schwendt:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:26:59 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
No, rpmbuild does not use src.rpm requires for determining build-requires because they're no good for that.
But yum-builddep does evaluate them.
Then file a bug against yum-builddep for doing the wrong thing.
Rejected. Sorry. I still think using %_isa in BR is the wrong thing to do for reasons other than querying downloaded src.rpms.
That one tool is using some metadata for what it was not intended to be used is no argument for forcing the metadata to fit this tool at the expense of creating huge breakages elsewhere.
We also run repoquery on remote "sources" repos to examine build requirements in src.rpm packages. That would be broken by %_isa, too. The occasional arch-conditional BR is worse enough already (since we try to build for all archs, and we even track ExcludeArch usage).
"yumdownloader --resolve --source …" is another tool that evaluates src.rpm metadata without rebuilding them for the target arch.
The requires of src.rpm only reflect what build-requires were active during the creation of that specific src.rpm file,
Which is nearly what I've been preaching. "The spec file's BuildRequires become the src.rpm's Requires" depending on the environment the src.rpm is built within.
And why collect "what build-requires were active during the creation of that specific src.rpm file" even when building a src.rpm with --nodeps?
You are correct that the requires recorded in the srpm are not really useful, and it is not usable for what you think it is usable.
This is not about "what I think" but about what has been done so far by people and by tools. It is not a problem for me to adjust my work-flow for every src.rpm and either reconstruct it _always_ or have any tools parse only the spec file. Before considering adding %_isa to BuildRequires, existing tools and repo metadata ought to be changed, please.