On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Until we add a new arch. But that still leaves things like java, mono, > ruby, etc as problem areas where "noarch" may not actually be "noarch". We seem to be using "noarch" in two different senses: 1. Contains no machine code, other architecture-specific bits, or build-system-specific artifacts (like build timestamps, build machine names, etc.) 2. Can be built/installed/consumed on any architecture. Those aren't the same. Since the addition of a new arch can break #2, how can packagers mean anything other than #1 by "noarch"? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
