python noarch vs arch

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 17:01 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:34:49PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > > I am working on packaging cohoba, this is a python gui client/mission
> > > control for telepathy. It has one small .c file, so I have a few
> > > questions:
> > > - because of the .c file the package has to by arch-specific i guess. Is
> > > there a strong preference to package as noarch?
> > 
> > No, on the contrary packaging binary bits as noarch is wrong.
> 
> yes i understand that, that's why i asked if there was a strong
> preference for noarch, in which case the c part will be removed.

You shouldn't make the contents of your packages depend on the arch
tag, it's the other way around. :)

If you are talking about a package of significant size (like
openoffice ;) and you could easily replace (or drop w/o loss of
functionality) the arch-dependent parts to make it noarch and thus
save some significant space, then you could think about it.

But it's a packager's (your) choice, noone can give you metrics on
size and functionality to weigh against. If in doubt prefer
functionality over space savings.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060902/a0a4581d/attachment.sig>