On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 06:40:28PM +0300, Alexey I. Froloff wrote:
>     0.4.5-alt5
>     
>     - Packaged User's Manual, dropped useless data and developer README's
>     - doc subpackage made noarch
>     - Resurrected changelog viewer

> --- a/aptitude.spec
> +++ b/aptitude.spec
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  
>  Name: aptitude
>  Version: 0.4.5
> -Release: alt4
> +Release: alt5
>  
>  Summary: Terminal-based apt frontend
>  Group: System/Configuration/Packaging
> @@ -29,6 +29,15 @@ can't be ported to apt-rpm.
>  %package doc
>  Summary: English manual for aptitude, a terminal-based apt frontend
>  Group: Books/Computer books
> +# Can't use noarch:
> +#--- aptitude-doc-0.4.5-alt5.noarch.rpm.i586     2009-12-21 18:23:35 +0300
> +#+++ aptitude-doc-0.4.5-alt5.noarch.rpm.x86_64   2009-12-21 18:23:35 +0300
> +#@@ -77,35 +77,35 @@
> +# /usr/share/doc/aptitude-doc-0.4.5/index.html
> +#-/usr/share/doc/aptitude-doc-0.4.5/ld-id2608397.html
> +#+/usr/share/doc/aptitude-doc-0.4.5/ld-id3016206.html
> +#...
> +#BuildArch: noarch
>  Conflicts: %name < %version-%release
>  Conflicts: %name > %version-%release

Shouldn't /usr/share part of the packages be identical, much the same
way as noarch packages must be identical?

I think I am going to implement much stricter checking for both noarch
packages and /usr/share part of arch packages.  Also, I am going to
implement new "force-noarch" check which will require some packages
be noarch (by the principle of "extensional equality").

If you don't like it, now is the right time to have your say.