About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com
Tue Jul 28 08:03:01 UTC 2015


On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Paulo C├ęsar Pereira de Andrade
<paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-07-27 22:34 GMT-03:00 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh at redhat.com>:
>> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05 +10:00:
>>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific?
>>
>> Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on
>> every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing battle), could you just
>> build the doc subpackage on only one arch?
>>
>> %ifarch x86_64
>> %package doc
>> BuildArch: noarch
>> ...
>> %endif
>
>   This looks like a very wise way of handling it. Actually, while debugging

It's not, it breaks all secondary architectures.

> it, I found that the translated documentation was not being properly
> generated, and after fixing it, it would take like 3 to 4 times longer
> to generate docs, and doc generation was already almost 80% of
> the package build time...

That tells me the process of generating docs is broken, or they're
very good docs and worth the wait!

>> I think Koji still counts this a regular noarch subpackage and it should
>> therefore be included in the Fedora trees for all arches.
>
>   In the worst case, it would generate -doc packages only for x86_64,
> where most users interested on reading it would be using.

And won't generate docs for any of the secondary arches which don't
have any x86_64 build capacity, please don't do this.


More information about the devel mailing list