On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2015-07-28 5:58 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: >> >>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific? >> >> No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages >> give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same* >> architecture. >> >> There is an effort under way to change that, called “reproducible >> builds”. The hard part is any reproducibility at all, identical noarch >> builds across architectures are likely just some additional work on top >> of it. > > I believe that if there is a check for bit by bit identical noarch > packages, it would also be mandatory some way to tell that > any minor difference is ok and expected, and use the noarch > built on that arch... > >> -- >> Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security > > Thanks, > Paulo Please note that *changing* a package from arch to noarch requires extra attention. The switch of architecture is not normally regarded as an upgrade path, by default, so you may have to insert an "Obsoletes" statement to ensure that older versions of the alternative architecture get upgraded. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
