[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Heads up: NoArch Sub Packages Feature continues

On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:

> There is one more thing left: Noarch sub packages should - most likely -
> be reflected in the Packaging and the Package Review Guidelines. I - as
> a RPM developer - really don't have a opinion how the Fedora Guidelines
> should look like and I also believe this is a Fedora business I should
> not interfere with. Can someone interested in this topic - probably
> someone in or near the Packaging Committee - please take over this issue
> and lead the discussion. I will otherwise drop it from the Feature.
I've been thinking about proposing a Guideline that says
"header files should not be placed in noarch packages. Header files can
contain architecture specific bits.  We currently do not have an
automated method for detecting whether header files are different on
different arches. When architecture specific information is encoded in
header files and the wrong architecture headers are installed, subtle
bugs can be introduced.  These bugs can be made worse because the
problems can occur and disappear unpredictably, based on which
architecture the noarch package was built on."

Can you think of anything else that should be outlawed in the Guidelines?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]