On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka <jchal...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > # Define arches for PA and SA
> > %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm}
> [...]
> > Recommended use in spec file:
> > 1) To choose the correct compiler:
> > %ifarch %{golang_arches}
> > BuildRequires: golang
> > %else
> > BuildRequires: gcc-go >= %{gccgo_min_vers}
> > %endif
> >
> This will not work. A source package is built on random architecture,
> thus using %ifarch to define BuildRequire will provide random results.
>
> (And maybe while building a source package, the RPM architecture is
> redefined to `noarch' value.)
I don't have any real analysis at hand, but we use %ifarch-ed
BuildRequires regularly and it works as expected. Secondary arches do
builds from imported srpms that are created on primary arches. A problem
is when Source or Patch are %ifarch-ed and this is forbidden by the
Guidelines.
And I think you are right with the "noarch" set as the architecture
when srpm is being created in the BuildSRPMFromSCM task.
Dan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
