On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2015-07-27 22:34 GMT-03:00 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05 +10:00: >>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific? >> >> Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on >> every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing battle), could you just >> build the doc subpackage on only one arch? >> >> %ifarch x86_64 >> %package doc >> BuildArch: noarch >> ... >> %endif > > This looks like a very wise way of handling it. Actually, while debugging It's not, it breaks all secondary architectures. > it, I found that the translated documentation was not being properly > generated, and after fixing it, it would take like 3 to 4 times longer > to generate docs, and doc generation was already almost 80% of > the package build time... That tells me the process of generating docs is broken, or they're very good docs and worth the wait! >> I think Koji still counts this a regular noarch subpackage and it should >> therefore be included in the Fedora trees for all arches. > > In the worst case, it would generate -doc packages only for x86_64, > where most users interested on reading it would be using. And won't generate docs for any of the secondary arches which don't have any x86_64 build capacity, please don't do this. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
