There is/was a conversion that changed - to _ in the package arch. And yes this needs to be fixed ASAP.
On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:23 AM, "Xu, Dongxiao" <dongxiao...@intel.com> wrote: > 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
