Fixing packages which rely on obsolete packages

Corinna Vinschen
Mon Jun 24 08:00:00 GMT 2013

On Jun 23 11:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 02:37:58AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> >On 2013-06-22 15:49, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I'm refreshing the procedure for updating setup.ini on sourceware
> >
> >As part of this, I would like to suggest again that a noarch directory
> >be added alongside x86 and x86_64, and its files be included in each
> >arch's setup.ini.  There are a LOT of noarch packages in the distro,
> >and it would save both disk space on sourceware and the mirrors, as
> >well as bandwidth for all (including users), with a noarch directory.
> >Of course, I am willing to help identify candidates for noarch, as well
> >as consider changes to cygport to simplify this.
> Sorry, I've already mentioned that I don't think that a separarte noarch
> directory is a good idea.  My opinion has not changed.

I still don't understand why that opinion is as it is.  The separation
between $arch/noarch packages makes a lot of sense, enough sense that
all Linux distros are using it in their packaging.  Yaakov's reasons
are all good ones.

Do we have a technical limitation which disallows to make this clean
separation?  If not, I don't see why we shouldn't do it.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list