https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133479 Nir Soffer <nsoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx, | |nsoffer@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(bugs.micheal@gmx. | |net) --- Comment #12 from Nir Soffer <nsoffer@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #9) > The "BuildArch" tag can be set per subpackage. Package "vdsm", for example, > currently builds arch-specific packages as well as "noarch" packages. > Creating a separate empty src.rpm for that only creates overhead. Hi Michael, I tried this combination (partial spec bellow): #vdsm.spec Name: vdsm BuildArch: noarch %package arch Summary: Vdsm architecture specific dependencies BuildArch: x86_64 ppc64 ppc64le %ifarch x86_64 Requires: python-dmidecode Requires: dmidecode %endif %ifnarch ppc64le Requires: ceph-common %endif Building it, I get this error: rpmbuild -ta \ vdsm-4.17.0.tar.gz error: line 321: Only noarch subpackages are supported: BuildArch: x86_64 ppc64 ppc64le make: *** [rpm] Error 1 Since the idea of having separate src.rpm for the architecture specific package was rejected, it seems that the only way is to make the main package architecture specific. Or do we have a better way to package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review