>>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> 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<
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to