On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:43:47 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 09:33:51AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > >> Is there some other way to add a noarch package that doesn't build on > > >> some architectures? > > > > > > Sadly this is a nasty situation. (I'm in the same boat with munin). > > > > > > There are 2 answers, neither ideal (I'd love to hear better): > > > > > > 1. Make your package archfull. Add ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch. > > > > > > 2. Leave it noarch and ExcludeArch: ppc64, then try and keep rebuilding > > > it until you hit a non ppc builder. > > > > 3. See if you can modify the package to do runtime determinism of > > whether the dependency is there, and only use that functionality if > > it's present. Personally I think that if that can't be done, then > > option 1 is the right way to go. > > 4. Post a patch to fix RPM. > > This is a bug or shortcoming in RPM. It affected some mingw32 > packages as well IIRC -- they are noarch and can be built anywhere, > but we wanted to %check them using wine which only runs on i386. > > Rich. make it archeful with a noarch subpackage that has the noarch bits. if you do it ExclusiveArch for the base arch you want it built on it would work as you want
Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
