Re: zypper and poky architectures
Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@...>
On 10/21/10 3:33 AM, Qing He wrote:
I recently reported several zypper bugs specifically for arm, afterWe can certainly look into translating "all" to "noarch" post 0.9. That might make it easier for people coming from the RPM world, to understand what is in the package.
2. the arch automatic detection system uses "uname -m", thus producingThis is a bug in Zypper. The machine names should come from somewhere other then uname -m. (The value of uname -m is very much ia32 specific for the most part.. other architectures have way too many possible namings for it to be useful.) There is a line in "/etc/rpm/platform" that contains the name of Poky architecture. This file should be referenced (instead of -m) for all cases.
3. many archs are missing in zypper, like mips, armeb, etc.Generally speaking, this is true of most RPM installations. However, within RPM itself.. there really isn't any concept of "arch" anymore.. They're really only used for grouping and ordering. So Zypper may need to be updated to query the arch of a package and use it for it's various operations.
Currently, at least zypper is broken on all of mips, arm, ppc, withWe can certainly do this easily.
2. removing the concept of machine-dependent packages, change allI'm a bit worried about doing this, as we'll end up with (potentially) incompatible packages with exactly the same name and versions... Perhaps we need to think about embedding the machine type into the name of the packages instead?
3. enhance zypper arch module, make the addition more flexible,Zypper should read the rpm platform file.
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 same time) working. I'm guessing there will be some Zypper interactions there as well.
Any ideas and comments?