Re: Dedup x86/x86_64 --> noarch

[Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk>]

On 23/04/2016 16:43, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen writes:
>> The src packages would ideally be in a src subdir, parallel to the
>> noarch and $arch dirs.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure I'd like that.
>
> The src packages are not generally arch-less.  There are several
> examples where either the cygport files, the patches or even the source
> archives are arch-specific.

I think 'generally' is over-stating the case, the vast majority of 
source packages should be arch-less.

If the source package really is arch-specific, then it should be marked 
so with ARCH [1]

If it contains arch-specific patches, they should be made conditional on 
ARCH.

[1] https://cygwinports.github.io/cygport/compilers_cygpart.html#robo872

 > Of these, the .cygwin patches are almost
> certainly spurious since they get time-stamped on creation.  The other
> differences most likely aren't, although it should be possible to
> reconcile them in most cases.

But yes, this is not straightforward because the way we generate source 
packages at the moment means there is no guarantee that the same source 
package is used to build the different arch variants.

> On another note, it still irks me that the debuginfo packages aren't
> following the naming convention of the src packages; they should be
> named ${PKG}-${PVR}-debuginfo.tar.xz and treated with their respective
> box in setup.exe just like the sources.
We have the source code :)