Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 12277

Summary:	subpackages with different arch
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	gerald
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.2
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2000-06-14 16:51:07 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description gerald 2000-06-14 16:51:06 UTC

I tried to build an "i386" package which contains subpackages which are
noarch.

Hence I added "BuilArch: noarch" to the "%package" section of each 
corresponding subpackage. This results in all packages beeing "noarch".
So I tried to say "BuilArch: i386" for the main package and all
subpackages beeing i386. This resulted in all packages beeing "i386".

Summary: It looks like rpm takes the first "BuildArch" it finds and
uses it for ALL (sub)packages.

BTW: Why do I have to specify "Group" for each package?

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2000-06-14 17:12:05 UTC

By design, rpm permits only one architecture per spec file parse. That
means that you are forbidden to have noarch sub-packages of a arch specific
package.

Group tag is similarly (i.e. by design) required.

Comment 2 gerald 2000-06-14 17:25:24 UTC

Why does rpm permit only one architecture per spec file parse? this makes 
absolutely no sense to me!

I have a package which has ~100MB. About 60MB thereof is additional 
documentation. I want to split off the additional documentation since
it eats up space and is by no means neccesary to run the software.
Since the doc is "noarch" why should'nt I be able to tell rpm that it is!?
Again this "feature" makes NO sense to me. Please change it.