[Fedora-packaging] To noarch or arch for arch specific script packages?

[Ville Skyttä]

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:01 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:

> The way I see it, if your package is comprised of non-compiled arch 
> independent content, it MUST be noarch.

+1.  Nitpick: "non-compiled" is misleading; compiled content can be arch
independent (eg. *.pyc, *.pyo) and non-compiled content can be arch
dependent (eg. due to install dirs or hardwired references to let's
say /usr/lib64/...), so "arch independent" should suffice.

> A side question is, what does plague do in this scenario?

Someone more familiar with plague's internals should answer that, but I
suppose it just builds the noarch package as usual [0].  For Extras the
push scripts handle the noarch + ExclusiveArch/ExcludeArch combos so
that the packages end up where wanted only.

One example is mhonarc which is noarch, but due to (un)availability of
some of its dependencies for the moment (#182514) is also marked
ExcludeArch: x86_64, and is thus not available in the x86_64 repos.
This setup makes sense to me.

[0] FE noarch packages tend to end up being built in the ppc builders; I
don't know what would happen with noarch + ExcludeArch: ppc.