On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:03, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> (Just note that there are exceptions, like the alsa-driver i386.rpm
> sub-package which needs not be published as i686/athlon. Splitting
> packages, one could always create separate noarch rpms. Still a noarch
> package can depend on specific components of a specific distribution
> version.)
>
> Two src.rpms would be overkill. Surely one could make the default i386
> build create only the main package (similar to upstream's wesnoth-lite
> release) and add conditional noarch build sections for the big optional
> data package. Sort of:
>
> rpmbuild --target i386,noarch --rebuild foo.src.rpm
>
> Similar to the kernel src.rpm. And with the build-system, adding extra
> options for the noarch build step to not append a disttag. (this doesn't
> cover mass rebuilds though which is another problem)
>
> If the package approval contained special instructions for the build
> person, that would be enough. The COMMON keyword would be used primarily
> for packages where no special instructions are needed, like font and extra
> data packages, script packages, and Perl noarch packages (with indirect
> dependency on perl-forward-compat).
>
> Anyway, noarch does not imply distribution independence, so a NOARCH
> keyword would not mean the same than COMMON. Whether you could split off
> common data into a noarch package always, doesn't really interest me.
Okay. I think I've got the whole picture now. Thanks Michael!
+1 on the COMMON keyword suggestion. I'll try not to use it
inappropriately :-)
-Toshio
--
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
t o s h i o + t i k i - l o u n g e . c o m
GA->ME 1999
