On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 23:37 +0800, Mark Hatle wrote:
(Sorry for the late response, today's my first day back from CELF)
On 10/21/10 8:47 PM, Qing He wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 23:18 +0800, Mark Hatle wrote:My preference is staying with the Poky 'arch' naming... but renaming to noarch
On 10/21/10 3:33 AM, Qing He wrote:If noarch is universally used in RPM word, I think we should use it.
1. what uses for independent packages is called "noarch", "all" is notWe can certainly look into translating "all" to "noarch" post 0.9. That might
recognized, something depends on update-rc.d won't be installed
because of missing dependency
make it easier for people coming from the RPM world, to understand what is in
1. rename *.all.rpm to *.noarch.rpmWe can certainly do this easily.
is fine, and unless Richard or someone else sees an issue it could be used as a
temporary workaround. (There are a few places like rootfs generation that we'll
have to translate "all" to "noarch".. if we decide to do this.)
This is good. I may test if this works and let's see if Richard has any
comments on it.
Thanks for the info. If we are going for dynamic platform specs, itYa, if we are able to do things dynamically, then the naming is no longer
doesn't really matter whether we have things like qemuarm or not, does it?
important. That's really my hope as to how we implement the RPM components.
It seems to be an elegant solution, but need some efforts to find out
how this can fit in current zypper.
Since Poky does not yet have the ability to deal with Multiarch builds, this is
I don't really have ideas how this is done. I think on debian this is
That would be some work to do, maybe 1.0 is a good time to get zypperYes, we also need to get multi-arch as well.. (i.e. 32-bit and 64-bit at the
and package upgrade truely working.
same time) working. I'm guessing there will be some Zypper interactions there
actually avoided and i386 packages are repackaged as lib32xxx for x86_64
something we will have to work on designing as we get closer to Yocto 1.0.
Within RPM, the rpm package manager understands all of the "types" of each file
in the system. When you ask to install (note, not upgrade) two packages of the
same name the system checks the files.
When a conflict is identified, if the contents of the files are the same,
nothing is done -- no error is generated.
If the contents of the file are different, and the file is tagged as a
configuration file, then either first or last in wins (I don't remember which)
-- no error is generated.
If the contents of the file are different, and the file type is NOT ELF (and the
above has no already detected), then an error is generated and installation stops.
if the contents of the file are different, and the file type is ELF... then
there is a weighting algorithm that is used. Depending on the configuration the
following could happen:
multiarch is not allowed -- an error is generated
multiarch is allowed -- one of the components though is not an allowed multiarch
-- an error is generated (this could be the mips case of o32, n32 and n64 on the
same system. You could prevent someone from installing say o32 binaries.)
multiarch is allowed -- a 'winner' is chosen based on the system configuration.
The winner is installed, and the loser is not installed -- no error is generated.
Hmm, this is not quite what I've been thinking about. The problem is
the shared library, and the library path renaming.
The above winner works fine for executables, nobody needs different arch
versions of a same binary, but it's possible that several different
archs are used for different binaries, that's where the library problem
Let's say we have an i586 `ls', and an x86_64 `cp' that coexist in the same
box, they would possibly link to two different ld-linux.so and libc.so (this
scenario is common requirement on x86, esp. x86_64). If 32bit rpms can
be installed to 64bit platforms directly without any modification, that
would be great.
I guess the deb way to solve this is to create a special kind of
package, namely `lib32c_2.10.1-r1.x86_64.deb', which installs something
like /lib32/ld-linux-i586.so.2. If the executable can links to it, the
dedicated ld.so cache can get most of its library path right. However,
sadly, this special lib32 and maybe the 32bit executable package, may
not be installable on pure i586 archs.
So should this kind of multiarch be concerned, where multiarch packages
coexist instead of being exlusive?