Re: noarch sub-packages

[Jeff Johnson]

On Jun 15, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Alexey Tourbin wrote:

Hello,
Do they really work?

rpm-5.1.3 $ ./rpmbuild -bb ~/test.spec

error: Package has no %description: test-1.0-alt1.x86_64
rpm-5.1.3 $ cat ~/test.spec
Name: test
Version: 1.0
Release: alt1
Summary: test
License: GPL
Source: foo
Group: Development/Other
BuildArch: %_target_cpu
%description
rpm-5.1.3 $

error: line 8: Only "noarch" sub-packages are supported: BuildArch: x86_64

$ rpm --version
rpm (RPM) 5.2.DEVEL
$ xxxrpm -bb test.spec
...
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-comment-note
Processing files: mypackage-1-0.i386
Processing files: mypackage-2-0.noarch

Wrote: /X/test/mypackage-1-0.i386.rpm
Wrote: /X/test/mypackage-2-0.noarch.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /X/tmp/rpm-tmp.80014
+ umask 022
...


named subpkgs with different versions and arches.


but different arches, subpkgs. Not hard, just not yet.

The full source rpm, which includes the files used by
the signature probes, is at
    http://wraptastic.org/pub/jbj/test-0-0.src.rpm

I'll be pushing this test.spec into "make check", and will double
check that I did not miss something juggling patches into
rpm-5.1.3 tomorrow.

hth

73 de Jeff

Certainly "they really work" (unless I missed pushing some patch to rpm-5.1.3): Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /X/tmp/test- root I'll attach the test.spec used, which also illustrates signature checking through build dependency probes as well as including multiple identically (aside) I likely need to permit identically named, with identical versions,

test.spec
Description: Binary data