Hi,

for internal reasons, I'm trying to package sympy (a python symbolic
algebra library) with rpm.
I find a small ambiguity between the packaging guidelines and the rpm
tools (nothing blocking).


Since the library does not contain C source code, I followed the noarch
packaging guidelines,
but rpmbuild insists on creating an x86-64 rpm. After verifying, I find
that this is very common
practise and that many packages that are installed in /usr/lib/python-*/
are x86-64 packages

even though they do not contain arch specific files.

Is there something I did not understood.

This is under FC7 x86-64.

Thank you,

Theo.

PS: If there is interest, I certainly can submit this rpm (and some
others) to fedora.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:11 +0200, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> Since the library does not contain C source code, I followed the noarch
> packaging guidelines,
> but rpmbuild insists on creating an x86-64 rpm.

Do you have: BuildArch: noarch

in your spec?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:11 +0200, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

Since the library does not contain C source code, I followed the noarch
packaging guidelines,

but rpmbuild insists on creating an x86-64 rpm.



Do you have: BuildArch: noarch

in your spec?

No, but then most python stuff does not have it either (ie use the
directives specified for noarch builds, but do not specify BuildArch:
noarch).
I took one of the fedora python package as a model, and then verifyed
that a lot of the python packages that install in /usr/lib/python*
are in this case (as of FC7). Even the template specs for python do not
show the BuildArch: noarch, that may be where it comes

from.

It's a small inconsistence (not very important in practise, I guess), I
just wanted to signal it...


Thank you for your quick answer. For myself, I'll add the noarch tag.
This seems cleaner.


Theo.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 14:11 +0200, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

Since the library does not contain C source code, I followed the
noarch packaging guidelines,

but rpmbuild insists on creating an x86-64 rpm.



Do you have: BuildArch: noarch

in your spec?

No, but then most python stuff does not have it either (ie use the
directives specified for noarch builds, but do not specify BuildArch:
noarch).
I took one of the fedora python package as a model, and then verifyed
that a lot of the python packages that install in /usr/lib/python*
are in this case (as of FC7). Even the template specs for python do not
show the BuildArch: noarch, that may be where it comes

from.

It's a small inconsistence (not very important in practise, I guess), I
just wanted to signal it...


Thank you for your quick answer. For myself, I'll add the noarch tag.
This seems cleaner.


Could you please tell us what the packages you looked at are? They are
doing things wrong.


And could you tell me which pages you would have expected to mention
BuildArch: noarch? We probably assume that people understand what
BuildArch is for and so we neglected to document it unambiguously.


-Toshio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list