From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9386E681 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2016 05:40:51 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,512,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="937192649" Received: from jlock-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.29.161]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Apr 2016 05:40:50 -0700 Message-ID: <1461242448.3571.4.camel@linux.intel.com> From: Joshua G Lock To: "Robert P. J. Day" , "Burton, Ross" Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:40:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OE Core mailing list Subject: Re: trying to reconcile OE builds with rpm4-format rpm files built on centos 6 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 12:40:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 08:24 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > > On 21 April 2016 at 13:06, Robert P. J. Day > > wrote: > >         next bit of muttering is, "can we downgrade the OE build to > > use > >       rpm4-format packages?", which is not a path down which i want > > to walk. > > > > > > Assuming that the obviously correct option of "build the packages > > inside OE" really is being written off for mysterious reasons, rpm4 > > was only just removed from oe-core (though depending on what > > releases you're using you may have never noticed it be added and > > removed again).  So you could just recover that from history > > (oe-core a6e7a86f1635be9a688c56c25e9d215ea4d2cc84 removed it) and > > fix it up. >   under the circumstances, that sounds like the simplest approach. > would we be losing any significant functionality downgrading to rpm4? > it's not my first choice, but if all that's required is to do basic > installs and upgrades, i suspect it will work just fine. On the topic of RPM4 vs. RPM5 you should be able to find more details in the list archives, I easily found a brief summary by Mark Hatle in the Yocto Project mailing list archive: "There are some specific uses of RPM 4 in the YP, but I do caution against people just using it "because".  The RPM 5 version is generally better suited for the embedded world.  (There are been posts on more reasons on the oe-core lists in the past.  But as quick summary -- dynamic architecture support, better cross compilation support, cross- endian support, more configurable for custom distributions, etc.)" http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.embedded.yocto.general/28654/ We ended up removing RPM4 support because it was clear that it was broken when using SMART as a package manager and we didn't have the resources to fix it, nor any objections to its removal. Some recent examples of the kinds of breakage: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8968 https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8969 Regards, Joshua