This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] ARCH=noarch uploads with cygport 0.22.0
- From: David Stacey <drstacey at tiscali dot co dot uk>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 23:07:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] ARCH=noarch uploads with cygport 0.22.0
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <9de6f042-3510-ef4c-9c2d-90f354244691 at cygwin dot com> <ba09f83c-c222-3d51-29d0-69e370113fad at gmail dot com> <170e1dbc-dc99-bfe1-ab6e-6307a58a19af at cygwin dot com> <2fc48512-ba72-d477-96e0-d9001521699a at tiscali dot co dot uk> <52605fbd-f185-68ea-46fe-a5334869777a at cygwin dot com>
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
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:
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.