Line 268: |
Line 268: |
| == Sub packages == | | == Sub packages == |
| | | |
− | By default, package has only one feed - ''service.xml'' which will be composed using ''[Service]'' section. But the service can have additional feeds, as well, in that case, ''service.info'' should contain additional sections (per sub feed) in the form: | + | By default, package is the singular and will be composed using ''[Package]'' or/and ''[Activity]'' sections. But the service can have sub-packages, as well, in that case, spec file should contain additional sections (per sub feed) in the form: |
| | | |
− | [<nowiki>Service/<sub-name></nowiki>] | + | [Package/<nowiki><sub-package></nowiki>] |
| | | |
− | Format of sub sections is identical to ''[Service]'' section. Sub feeds could make sense, e.g., for combining non-arch data feeds and pure binary feeds (to make per-architecture implementations), or to have the packaged option for runtime packages (Service), and for *dev* packages (Service/devel). | + | Format of sub sections is identical to ''[Package]'' section. Sub packages could make sense, e.g., for combining non-arch data and pure binaries, or to separate runtime and buildtime data. |
| | | |
− | There is no need to keep a ''[Service]'' option that would apply to every sub section in every sub section. For that case, it would be easier to move common options to the ''[DEFAULT]'' section.
| + | Other packages can mention sub packages by format: |
| | | |
− | Other services can mention sub feeds by format:
| + | <package>/<nowiki><sub-package></nowiki> |
| | | |
− | <nowiki><service-name>/<sub-service-name></nowiki>
| + | The good practise is using followed names for sub packages: |
| + | |
| + | * ''data'' for non-arch sub packages, |
| + | * ''devel'' for sub packages with buildtime data like C header files. |
| | | |
| == Recipes == | | == Recipes == |