On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:21:35PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 17:10 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:48:49PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > > It seems your spec making program has some bugs, as some packages have
> > > names such as texlive-csplain.ARCH, this probably shouldn't be..?
> >
> > Nope, it is intentional. It is needed to somehow distinguish the
> > noarch and arch-dependent part. So package texlive-csplain contains
> > the noarch bits and texlive-csplain.ARCH ships the binaries.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have texlive-csplain%{_isa} shipping the arch
> dependent bits and a texlive-csplain-common.noarch shipping the arch
> independent stuff? That would be more in line with other packages.
Hmm, this is even better idea. It was not originally possible in the
first designed TL packaging scheme (noarch and binary bits were
created from one src.rpm what prevented arch/noarch package named in
the same way) but now it is actually possible because binaries are built
separately.
Thanks,
Jindrich
> --
> Jussi Lehtola
> Fedora Project Contributor
> jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
