On 1/19/15 10:31 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: >> On 1/18/15 4:55 PM, Yevhen Kyriukha wrote: >>> I'm building RPM packages for ARM board. >>> I'm getting packages generated for 3 architectures: all, raspberrypi, >>> armv6hf_vfp. >>> I can't install any of these packages with rpm as it uses "uname" to >>> get current machine arch and "uname" outputs "armv6l" arch. Also "all" >>> should be "noarch" for rpm. >>> I want that packages have "proper" arch: "noarch" and "armv6l". >>> Could someone give suggestions on this, please? >>> >> >> You are using the wrong version of RPM. You need to use the version (RPM5) >> that >> is configured by the system during the filesystem generation, along with the >> platform file (/etc/rpm/platform) to specify to the system what is allowed. >> >> RPM4 (which it sounds like you are using) does not have an easily adjustable >> table of package names. To install Yocto Project packages, you will need to >> patch it to define the additional names. > > Shouldn't RPM4 to be removed from OE-Core in this case? > >
oe-core preferred version in RPM5. The RPM4 version that was recently added should have this support. So if the users have enabled the -oe-core- version of RPM4 and are getting these failures then bugs should be filed. I was referring to the community version of RPM 4. I've seen people trying to build packages w/ OE, and then install them on their Red Hat or other ARM targets and it didn't work in the manner described. --Mark -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
