On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:01 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > The way I see it, if your package is comprised of non-compiled arch > independent content, it MUST be noarch. +1. Nitpick: "non-compiled" is misleading; compiled content can be arch independent (eg. *.pyc, *.pyo) and non-compiled content can be arch dependent (eg. due to install dirs or hardwired references to let's say /usr/lib64/...), so "arch independent" should suffice. > A side question is, what does plague do in this scenario? Someone more familiar with plague's internals should answer that, but I suppose it just builds the noarch package as usual [0]. For Extras the push scripts handle the noarch + ExclusiveArch/ExcludeArch combos so that the packages end up where wanted only. One example is mhonarc which is noarch, but due to (un)availability of some of its dependencies for the moment (#182514) is also marked ExcludeArch: x86_64, and is thus not available in the x86_64 repos. This setup makes sense to me. [0] FE noarch packages tend to end up being built in the ppc builders; I don't know what would happen with noarch + ExcludeArch: ppc. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
