On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:02:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 12 July 2006 06:14, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Else it would be abuse of tags. The only vaguely valid case is combining > > BuildArch noarch and ExcludeArch, which is like saying "by nature, the > > package contents are arch-independent, but we know that there is a problem > > on the N excluded archs". > > How far do you take this though? > > ExcludeArch: ppc ppc64 s390 s390x alpha sparc sparc64 ia64 arm ..... > > It starts to get silly when you have to guess at the arches that somebody may > attempt to install your package for. No, it is silly to not make the package arch-specific in that case. Your package excludes almost a dozen archs => it is not arch-independent! > Why would 'ExcludeArch' be ok, > but 'ExclusiveArch' not be? I tried to explain this in my previous reply. ExcludeArch => we know about problems with the explicitly excluded archs, we assume the package is okay for all other archs > ExclusiveArch says "I know it _only_ works here, > nowhere else." Then it is NOT noarch. > where as ExcludeArch would be "These are the arches out in the > world I know of, and I know it doesn't work there." Once more, ExcludeArch and ExclusiveArch are NOT information that can be found in the .noarch package. > I agree that we are overloading the tag. But if we're going to ban one > method, we should ban them all and make it a hard rule that if your noarch > code only works on specific arches, make it an arch specific package. Exactly. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
