On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 08:38 +0800, Xu, Dongxiao wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 10:35 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > On 4/16/12 8:01 PM, Xu, Dongxiao wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am testing beagleboard with RPM, and there is a question I am confused > > > with that PACKAGE_ARCH is renamed for certain packages. For example the > > > "acl" package, whose expected PACKAGE_ARCH is "armv7a-vfp-neon", however > > > in RPM file, the arch is renamed to "armv7a", see > > > "acl-2.2.51-r2.armv7a.rpm". However IPK package still shows > > > "acl_2.2.51-r2_armv7a-vfp-neon.ipk". > > > > > > Could anybody give hint on this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dongxiao > > > > > > > I've not seen that happen before. Can you checked if an > > acl-...armv7a-vfp-neon.rpm was generated and RPM is simply not using it, or > > was > > it never generated? > > No, there is no acl-xxx.armv7a-vfp-neon.rpm, only acl-xxx.armv7a.rpm > created.
Just looked at this issue with Lianhao, and we got some clues. It seems that we don't allow '-' exists in architecture label within RPM. Here for the beagleboard case, we use the parameter as: rpm ... --target "armv7a-vfp-neon-poky-linux" I think the RPM internal strips all the contents after the first '-' and use "armv7a" as the architecture label. Similar is the multilib case, we can see from the code that, we use 'lib64_qemux86' instead of 'lib64-qemux86' as the architecture label. If our thoughts are right, I think we need a fix for that before 1.2 release? Thanks, Dongxiao > > Actually I think this issue does exist since our 1.1 release, you can > have a look at the package repo: > > http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.1/rpm/armv7a-vfp-neon/ > > The directory is named as "armv7a-vfp-neon", however all the packages > under the directory are of "armv7a" architecture. > > While see the ipk part: > http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.1/ipk/armv7a-vfp-neon/ > The directory name and rpm architecture name are the same. > > Thanks, > Dongxiao > > > > > As another user mentioned, it is possible for a package to say it wants a > > specific arch type, but if it did -- it should be consistent between > > packaging > > systems. > > > > --Mark > _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
