>>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: PR> Here comes the same argument as with ExclusiveArch .. I don't want PR> to, because this _is_ noarch package and _is_ expected to work on PR> all arches, at some point. It's not noarch, sorry. It doesn't work on all architectures, regardless of whether it has any compiled code. PR> If I blacklist some arches today, I'll likely never enable the PR> package for the blacklisted architectures. Nothing technical prevents you from doing so. If the issue is whether you'll remember, I'm not sure what to suggest. I have the same problem, but it's unrelated to packaging, so.... PR> Is it wrong to simply let things as are? Does it hurt some process PR> in Fedora (except for additional traffic in my INBOX)? Yes, people using those architectures will have a package they cannot install. We don't permit such broken dependencies in the distribution. There has been talk before of some hack to make packages like this still pretend to be noarch, but since the proper solution is so simple (remove BuildArch: noarch and add ExclusiveArch:) there's not really been much incentive to implement it. I do see this become more of an issue with every new arch bringup unless they have rather complete coverage. The mere presence of some minor architecture shouldn't force a bunch of packages to suddenly become archful. Feel free to talk to the buildsys and releng folks about it (again). But the solution in your case is pretty obvious. - J< _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
