On Friday 03 April 2009, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > The rpmdiff you're talking about is only run against noarch
> > *subpackages*. This is a noarch base package, and like every other
> > package, we assume the maintainer is handling arch issues appropriately.
> > In this case, a noarch package should not be dropping files under
> > %{_lib}, since this will obviously be different depending on which arch
> > it was built on. Maybe there should be a check in redhat-rpm-config to
> > avoid this? I'm not sure how noarch packages are supposed to handle
> > pkgconfig files.
>
> Thanks for the clarification, ultimately it was an oversight on my
> part, and the package review. Maybe one of the easy ways to pick it up
> is a check in rpmlint.
s/a check/the check/
This is what rpmlint has to say about gupnp-vala.spec, 0.5.3-3%{?dist} from
CVS's devel branch with "BuildArch: noarch" added:
$ rpmlint ./gupnp-vala.spec
./gupnp-vala.spec:61: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/gupnp-vala-1.0.pc
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
