Denis Leroy wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 11:33 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> While playing with custom repos I noticed that libgcj-devel requires a
>> file from zlib-devel that isn't explicitly provided. In a mixed
>> x86_86 / i386
>> environmentment this requires looking at the file lists to see that
>> libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386 and that
>> zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.x86_64 isn't good enough.
>>
>> I am not sure if this is actually a bug though and if so, which package
>> is at fault. I was hoping to get some guidance here on whether or not
>> this is something I should bugzilla.
>
> I think that file dep is explicit - b/c libgcj-devel-4.3.2-4.i386 needs
> the i386 version of that package - not the x86_64.
do you know what is the technical reason for this dependency ? Exotic
build system ?
With a simple bump and rebuild of zlib (using the new rpm), zlib-devel
would pick up provides of zlib-devel%{?_isa} (on i386 this would be
zlib-devel(x86-32) and on x86_64 it would be zlib-devel(x86-64)).
Dependencies of zlib-devel%{?_isa} could then be added in other packages
where needed.
Ideally there would be a mass rebuild prior to F10 of all packages where
this is likely to be useful (e.g. everything providing a -devel package)
that have not been rebuilt using the new rpm. This would ensure that
spec files using %{?_isa} dependencies would be compatible with all
supported Fedora releases after F10 goes gold. By this I mean that in F9
the expansion of the %{?_isa} macro would be empty and hence
transparent, and for F10 onwards, any package that might be expected to
provide %{?_isa} dependencies will do so. Without a rebuild prior to
F10, it's possible for instance that a rebuild of zlib early in F11
development could lead to F11 packages having zlib-devel%{?_isa}
dependencies added, but packages built from the same spec files on F10
would have broken deps because the zlib-devel%{?_isa} dependency would
be unsatisfied there.
Paul.