On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 17:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 17:01 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > > > I am working on packaging cohoba, this is a python gui client/mission > > > > control for telepathy. It has one small .c file, so I have a few > > > > questions: > > > > - because of the .c file the package has to by arch-specific i guess. Is > > > > there a strong preference to package as noarch? > > > > > > No, on the contrary packaging binary bits as noarch is wrong. > > > > yes i understand that, that's why i asked if there was a strong > > preference for noarch, in which case the c part will be removed. > > You shouldn't make the contents of your packages depend on the arch > tag, it's the other way around. :) > > If you are talking about a package of significant size (like > openoffice ;) and you could easily replace (or drop w/o loss of > functionality) the arch-dependent parts to make it noarch and thus > save some significant space, then you could think about it. > > But it's a packager's (your) choice, noone can give you metrics on > size and functionality to weigh against. If in doubt prefer > functionality over space savings. Ok, I was just wondering if there might be some big advantages having a package noarch. I guess now that the advantages are not big enough to spend time on. Thank you and Jesse for answering, and sorry for the confusion followed after my question. Sander -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
