ISA specific dependencies

Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński maciej at
Mon Mar 24 00:27:35 CET 2014

2014-03-16 20:28 GMT+00:00 Dagobert Michelsen <dam at>:
> This looks wrong regarding the checks. IMHO when a dependency is given (regardless
> if it is 32 and/or 64 bit) the package should be specified and no surplus dependency
> should be thrown.

I agree. One reason is enough to do this. I need to reread the code to
figure out what is exactly going on in checkpkg's head, this outcome
surprises me. I thought it was implement in a way that makes this
always consistent.

One thing that could be the cause is that checkpkg currently does not
understand 32/64 bit libraries: it thinks that anything that has name
"" will satisfy a binary with "NEEDED". It does not
look at the file type but only at the file existence.

On the plus side, we now have the file type data in the database, so
we have the data necessary to implement this. I don't know if this is
the cause, but on the surface it looks like it could be.


More information about the maintainers mailing list