On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 01:32:49PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > I beg to differ. When a tag in RPM can have multiple items (e.g.
> > Provides, (Build)Requires), this …:
> >
> > Tag: item1 item2 item3
> >
> > … is consistently equivalent to this:
> >
> > Tag: item1
> > Tag: item2
> > Tag: item3
> >
> > To have ExclusiveArch behave differently would be surprising – nobody
> > (😉) would read this and expect the effective list of arches the
> > package would be built for to be empty:
> >
> > ExclusiveArch: x86_64
> > ExclusiveArch: s390x
> > ExclusiveArch: aarch64
>
> +1. The current union behavior is reasonable, please do not change it
> incompatibly (and inconsistenly with all other tags, as pointed out above).
I take your point that we shouldn't change it now. It is however very
weird when you first come across it (with ExclusiveArch). A syntax
like this would be clear and not incompatible:
ExclusiveArch: intersection (%{kernel_arches}, %{java_arches})
(Or even using Unicode ‘∩’ :-)
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
