On Monday, November 14, 2016 4:37:57 PM CET Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >> First off, the guidelines have: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies > >> > >> I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case. > >> If you're just talking about the case where you can build it anywhere > >> because you're just copying files around, but it just won't install, > >> then you can try doing the noarch/ExclusiveArch: trick. To be fair, I > >> have no idea if it still works; I recall that some people really didn't > >> like it. Of course if it doesn't work then I'll remove that bit from > >> the guidelines. I've sent out a couple of questions to folks who should > >> know better than I. > > > > To close this for fedora-devel too, the ExclusiveArch trick probably > > doesn't work at least in my case [1] because: > > > > - I set ExclusiveArch for set of sub-packages only > > Exclusive/Exclude arch only works for the whole package, not for sub > packages, it's global to the extire spec. Worth saying in Guidelines? Because I was able to build package that did have multiple ExclusiveArch tags (seemingly assigned to subpackages), and toolchain did not complain. Still, the guidelines suggest to put 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch which is clearly a bad advice (and it took a really long debugging to understand why). > If you want to exclude package based on arch (why?) Because some of the sub-packages don't have important Requires available on some architectures. See the thread. > you need to do %ifarch conditionals for the sub package components. Isn't truth that we build noarch packages on randomly chosen "primary" architecture, and then distribute this noarch binary package to all primary architectures? Wouldn't that mean that if 'aarch64' was chosen for build, the subpackage would be missing on all primary arches? (OT: for some reason, secondary architectures re-build the noarch packages separately for every architecture, but that might be just self-defensive approach) Pavel > > - I've added 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch, because of the bug 1298668 > > Orion mentioned. > > > > Can this be somehow reflected in guidelines [2]? I don't really know how, > > but at least in case of vim-syntastic -> I'm against adding ExclusiveArch > > into vim-syntastic (that means if single _sub_package doesn't work on say > > aarch64, every other sub-package will be excluded from aarch64). > > > > [1] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/87 > > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > > > Pavel > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
