On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:33 PM Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (snip) > This would address both of the justifications for the general > prohibition in the guidelines: > > - The package will still be built, and any tests executed, on all > architectures so long as the base package is not noarch > - Differences in the installed headers depending on the build > architecture would be detected by koji[2], failing the build > (and thereby indicating the need to drop “noarch”) > > However, it would confer the following benefits: > > - The vast majority of header-only packages could produce noarch > binary rpms. This would: > > * save storage and bandwidth > * be less surprising and confusing to packagers and users, who > normally expect arch-independent content to appear in noarch > packages > > I have created a PR[3] on the “atomic-queue” package as an example. In > the associated scratch build, you can see that builds occur on all > architectures, but only a single noarch RPM is produced. > > If feedback here is positive, I’ll open a Packaging Draft[4] with > specific proposed text. I think making the *subpackages* noarch is a good idea, if that's possible. In fact, that's how Rust packages already work (well, they're not "header-only", but "source-only", but the difference doesn't matter here ...) We run a test build and run tests on all supported architectures, but ship sources as noarch -devel subpackages. Fabio _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
