On Jun 15, 2008, at 10:31 PM, Alexey Tourbin wrote:

> Hello,
> Do they really work?
>
> rpm-5.1.3 $ ./rpmbuild -bb ~/test.spec
> error: line 8: Only "noarch" sub-packages are supported: BuildArch:  
> x86_64
> error: Package has no %description: test-1.0-alt1.x86_64
> rpm-5.1.3 $ cat ~/test.spec
> Name: test
> Version: 1.0
> Release: alt1
> Summary: test
> License: GPL
> Source: foo
> Group: Development/Other
> BuildArch: %_target_cpu
> %description
> rpm-5.1.3 $

Certainly "they really work" (unless I missed pushing some patch to  
rpm-5.1.3):

$ rpm --version
rpm (RPM) 5.2.DEVEL
$ xxxrpm -bb test.spec
...
+ /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-comment-note
Processing files: mypackage-1-0.i386
Processing files: mypackage-2-0.noarch
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /X/tmp/test- 
root
Wrote: /X/test/mypackage-1-0.i386.rpm
Wrote: /X/test/mypackage-2-0.noarch.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /X/tmp/rpm-tmp.80014
+ umask 022
...

I'll attach the test.spec used, which also illustrates signature  
checking
through build dependency probes as well as including multiple  
identically
named subpkgs with different versions and arches.

(aside) I likely need to permit identically named, with identical  
versions,
but different arches, subpkgs. Not hard, just not yet.

The full source rpm, which includes the files used by
the signature probes, is at
     http://wraptastic.org/pub/jbj/test-0-0.src.rpm

I'll be pushing this test.spec into "make check", and will double
check that I did not miss something juggling patches into
rpm-5.1.3 tomorrow.

hth

73 de Jeff