On Apr 23 12:12, marco atzeri wrote: > On 4/23/2013 10:37 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > >I still think it would make sense to name the packages according to > >their architecture in future: > > > > foo-1.0-1.i686.tar.bz2 > > bar-2.3-4.x86_64.tar.bz > > baz-5.0-8.noarch.tar.bz2 > > no objection > > >We should also find a simply mechanism to share the noarch packages > >between the i686 and x86_64 release area, either by adding a noarch > >dir or by automatic copying or linking the files (or parent dirs) > >between the i686 and x86_64 release areas. > > this will require syncronization between the two versions > and it is unlikely to happen anytime soon
But isn't that what noarch packages are about? Since they are architecture-independent you can easily share them. Or do you have an example where we must have different versions of a noarch package in the i686 and the x86_64 release? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
