From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 618 invoked by alias); 11 May 2016 20:15:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 442 invoked by uid 89); 11 May 2016 20:15:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:cygwin, H*Ad:U*yselkowitz, H*F:U*yselkowitz, stacey X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 11 May 2016 20:15:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DC07F6B4 for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 20:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.116.22] (ovpn-116-22.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.116.22]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u4BKEwJM019490 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 May 2016 16:14:59 -0400 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> <170e1dbc-dc99-bfe1-ab6e-6307a58a19af@cygwin.com> <2fc48512-ba72-d477-96e0-d9001521699a@tiscali.co.uk> From: Yaakov Selkowitz Message-ID: <52605fbd-f185-68ea-46fe-a5334869777a@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2fc48512-ba72-d477-96e0-d9001521699a@tiscali.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On 2016-05-11 11:26, David Stacey wrote: > 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. Your call, it doesn't appear that anything is gained from building it together with poco itself. I'd name the sources poco-doc and either: OBSOLETES=libpoco-doc or: PKG_NAMES="libpoco-doc" libpoco_doc_CONTENTS="usr/share/doc/poco/html/" -- Yaakov