From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cygwin-apps-return-37313-listarch-cygwin-apps=sources.redhat.com@cygwin.com>
Received: (qmail 78301 invoked by alias); 11 May 2016 16:26:25 -0000
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
List-Id: <cygwin-apps.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
Received: (qmail 78284 invoked by uid 89); 11 May 2016 16:26:25 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:tiscali, HX-HELO:sk:smtp-ou, Hx-spam-relays-external:sk:smtp-ou, H*RU:sk:smtp-ou
X-HELO: smtp-out-5.tiscali.co.uk
Received: from smtp-out-5.tiscali.co.uk (HELO smtp-out-5.tiscali.co.uk) (62.24.135.133) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2016 16:26:17 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([79.68.200.40])	by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP	id 0WxdbrbyBSYMZ0WxibQO77; Wed, 11 May 2016 17:26:15 +0100
Subject: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] ARCH=noarch uploads with cygport 0.22.0
To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
References: <9de6f042-3510-ef4c-9c2d-90f354244691@cygwin.com> <ba09f83c-c222-3d51-29d0-69e370113fad@gmail.com> <170e1dbc-dc99-bfe1-ab6e-6307a58a19af@cygwin.com>
From: David Stacey <drstacey@tiscali.co.uk>
Message-ID: <2fc48512-ba72-d477-96e0-d9001521699a@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 16:26:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <170e1dbc-dc99-bfe1-ab6e-6307a58a19af@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfBvWZI0p7AU+SrkMsfJ3s6jQKX2p5/R3/KWGU+L7nBSIYGLihqR3LFvG9awQ3DZAzNXZWPs8/sI5qMxx9i3rnYQY4Feity7PieQXYKG4vCzgS0cr2LeX OOAdQk2fpJfR5UsOC9JCvWle4mSnY1vvNeL4czDEZFUfCOglvNh982UaEl4EovS9lqlrOuq6OMpA9Q==
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2

On 11/05/16 07:17, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 2016-05-11 00:07, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>> So at this stage not the documentation subpackages, but only if all
>> subpackages are in this category. correct ?
>
> At this time we are only considering those where all subpackages are 
> noarch, i.e. ARCH=noarch is (or will be) defined.


Is it worth making libpoco-doc a separate package? It might be cleaner 
that way, as the documentation and source code are in different tarballs 
upstream.

Dave.