Line 268: |
Line 268: |
| == Sub packages == | | == Sub packages == |
| | | |
− | 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, the spec file 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 if the package contains several logical components, it might have sub packages. In that case, the spec file should contain additional sections (per sub package) in the form: |
| | | |
| [Package/<nowiki><sub-package></nowiki>] | | [Package/<nowiki><sub-package></nowiki>] |
| | | |
− | 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. | + | Format of sub sections is identical to ''[Package]'' section. Sub packages could make sense, e.g., for packaging additional content, or to separate library and its script language binding. |
| | | |
| Other packages can mention sub packages by the format: | | Other packages can mention sub packages by the format: |
Line 280: |
Line 280: |
| Good practise is using the following names for sub packages: | | Good practise is using the following names for sub packages: |
| | | |
− | * ''data'' for non-arch sub packages,
| |
− | * ''devel'' for sub packages with buildtime data like C header files,
| |
| * ''python'' for Python binding. | | * ''python'' for Python binding. |
| | | |