From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12509 invoked by alias); 17 May 2016 22:07:52 -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 12484 invoked by uid 89); 17 May 2016 22:07:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:tiscali, UD:tiscali.co.uk, Hx-languages-length:1129, HX-HELO:sk:smtp-ou X-HELO: smtp-out-6.tiscali.co.uk Received: from smtp-out-6.tiscali.co.uk (HELO smtp-out-6.tiscali.co.uk) (62.24.135.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 May 2016 22:07:49 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([79.68.198.203]) by smtp.talktalk.net with SMTP id 2n9SbVu9y1odX2n9Wb5Mtl; Tue, 17 May 2016 23:07:47 +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> <170e1dbc-dc99-bfe1-ab6e-6307a58a19af@cygwin.com> <2fc48512-ba72-d477-96e0-d9001521699a@tiscali.co.uk> <52605fbd-f185-68ea-46fe-a5334869777a@cygwin.com> From: David Stacey Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 22:07:00 -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: <52605fbd-f185-68ea-46fe-a5334869777a@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDNnL63cevzn4jrNDyGcgZDNB4OzRLQYa+WbOuIj59iOXdogvy6w342BK3fC5orkU/tXPMTpK0KNpPSffMiOhuOsLUasZlkplMPydJ5ICxu17e8dNx7k grCVB7a/Um8qnOaZXnAMBFNQh96x1RBI8Di8lw7LuhvQKHWb5HPl99aKm05KP7dViE121OxO+6ckeg== X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On 11/05/16 21:15, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > 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/" Thank you for your advice. I think I'd like to split the documentation into a separate package, as it will make it easier to maintain. As I'm creating a new top-level package, I'll send an ITP separately. Dave.