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.
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 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.
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