On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 08:30:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:09:29 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> If what you say above was true it would be a problem. But it doesn't
> work like that.
True, it doesn't really work like that, but %_isa in BuildRequires
adds a confusing problem nevertheless.
BuildRequires in the spec file become the src.rpm's Requires.
If those Requires are arch-specific, you cannot use tools like
yum-builddep or "rpm" to query the package's build requirements.
You would need to reconstruct the src.rpm always for the target
arch (not only if there are arch-conditional BuildRequires).
The src.rpm is built on an arbitrary build host, and Fedora publishes
a single src.rpm build in the sources repo. It's just lame if the user
of an x86_64 installation downloads src.rpm packages, which contain
x86-32, ppc or other arch-specific dependencies. That doesn't add any
value at all.
> $ rpmbuild --rebuild globus-common-14.9-3.fc18.src.rpm
That doesn't evaluate the src.rpm's Requires as yum-builddep or "rpm
-qpR" do.
So, why obfuscate the BuildRequires and the src.rpm's Requires?
> ... build succeeds ... because the BRs needed on the build system's architecture
are there
>
Nasty, isn't it? The package specifies '(x86-32)' requirements, but
you've
just built for '(x86-64)'.
The FPC discussed this today and added a prohibition to using %{_isa} in
BuildRequires to the Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_and_.25...
Thanks to mschwendt for explaining the rationale so clearly.
-Toshio