https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133479 Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(bugs.micheal@gmx. | |net) | --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.micheal@xxxxxxx> --- > Name: vdsm > BuildArch: noarch Once you set "BuildArch: noarch" in the base package, _everything_ becomes noarch, i.e. also build-time tests and all subpackages. Their dependencies can only be arch-independent, too. %ifarch won't work then. Build host may be of any arch. So, don't do that, if you want to retain full control about the buildarch of subpackages. Then you can set "BuildArch:" freely for individual subpackages, such as noarch metapackages. Currently, vdsm depends on libc (arch-specific) and contains lots of files. Even if you plan to get rid of the libc dep, there still would not be any strict need to includes tons of noarch files in the base package instead of some subpackage. > Or do we have a better way to package? 1) Noarch contents from an arch-specific package can be moved to a noarch -common subpackage easily. 2) It's not even necessary to build any base package at all. An empty base %files section produces no binary rpm. 3) Src.rpm name could be "vdsm-suite", with no base package, and all built packages would be subpackages with full control over BuildArch per subpackage. -- 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