Description of problem: If you have: BuildArch?: noarch ExclusiveArch?: x86_64 You get: $ rpmbuild -ba *spec error: Architecture is not included: noarch Since there are no "noarch" machines, it seems useful to special case noarch builds. This would save a lot of grief with the koji builders and trying to limit noarch builds to certain architectures. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.13.fc24.x86_64
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies for some backgound.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 24 development cycle. Changing version to '24'. More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/HouseKeeping/Fedora24#Rawhide_Rebase
While we could make an exception for noarch in the code I am wondering if this really is the right thing to do. Why would you only add ExclusiveArch?: x86_64 to a noarch package? Why not just add noarch to that line? May be I am not really getting the use case...
The use case is: The built package is noarch but it has a BuildRequires which is arched (e.g for documentation build process). And that BuildRequires is available only on x86_64 so builds on s390x builders constantly fail. On the other hand the final package runs on s390x just fine.
Ok I have a fix upstream as https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/d53499d1565dd7ba6d93939e552cc604b26dccd7 which is also in rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.26.fc25 . I am still not 100% sure this doesn't create any additional problems. But I really have no clue what releng in all of the different distros actually does - especially with ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch. Please test thoroughly! I really would avoid things like breaking the build sys for all noarch packages. Also note that this change won't make it into F24 until someone assures me that it won't break the build system.
Does that patch fix your issue? And not break anything else?
It seems fine. koji will still need to get changed to really allow it to be exercised, but I think it's a step in the right direction and hasn't caused any problems that I'm aware of. Thanks.
Do you need this to be back ported to F24 or even F23? Or can we just close it as fixed?
At the moment lets just close it as fixed. There are koji changes that would need to be made as well to get it into production.
Tracking koji changes here: https://pagure.io/koji/issue/19
(In reply to Florian Festi from comment #8) > Do you need this to be back ported to F24 or even F23? Or can we just close > it as fixed? I would actually vote to have it fixed F23+. Otherwise the 'ExclusiveArch: ...' + 'BuildArch: noarch' hack doesn't work at all in pungi: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/87 Long story short -> when you put 'noarch' into ExclusiveArch tag, every _binary_ RPM ((sub)package) instantiated from the spec file "inherits" this 'noarch' bit from _source_ RPM and then is "compatible" (from the pungi POV) with every Fedora compatible architecture.
clear needinfo