Re: zypper and poky architectures

Qing He <qing.he@...>

On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 23:18 +0800, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 10/21/10 3:33 AM, Qing He wrote:
1. what uses for independent packages is called "noarch", "all" is not
recognized, something depends on update-rc.d won't be installed
because of missing dependency
We 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.

1. rename *.all.rpm to *.noarch.rpm
We can certainly do this easily.
If noarch is universally used in RPM word, I think we should use it.

2. the arch automatic detection system uses "uname -m", thus producing
armv5tejl, which can only be resolved as armv5tel, conflicting with
"armv5te" in rpm
This 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. enhance zypper arch module, make the addition more flexible,
allowing arch alias (e.g. armv5te = armv5tel = armel = arm)
Zypper should read the rpm platform file.
Sounds reasonable. After all, zypper is only intended to be a frontend
utility to the lower end package tool. Then we won't need to worry about
alias and different naming, and this detaches zypper from hardware.

3. many archs are missing in zypper, like mips, armeb, etc.
4. there is no concept of machine-dependent packages (task-base) in
zypper, although we can work around.
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.

2. removing the concept of machine-dependent packages, change all
*.qemuarm.rpm to *.armv5te.rpm
I'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
Thanks for the info. If we are going for dynamic platform specs, it
doesn't really matter whether we have things like qemuarm or not, does it?

That would be some work to do, maybe 1.0 is a good time to get zypper
and package upgrade truely working.
Yes, 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.
I don't really have ideas how this is done. I think on debian this is
actually avoided and i386 packages are repackaged as lib32xxx for x86_64


Join to automatically receive all group messages.