Re: RPM package generation architecture

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 1/19/15 10:31 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/15 4:55 PM, Yevhen Kyriukha wrote:
>>> I'm building RPM packages for ARM board.
>>> I'm getting packages generated for 3 architectures: all, raspberrypi,
>>> armv6hf_vfp.
>>> I can't install any of these packages with rpm as it uses "uname" to
>>> get current machine arch and "uname" outputs "armv6l" arch. Also "all"
>>> should be "noarch" for rpm.
>>> I want that packages have "proper" arch: "noarch" and "armv6l".
>>> Could someone give suggestions on this, please?
>>>
>>
>> You are using the wrong version of RPM.  You need to use the version (RPM5) that
>> is configured by the system during the filesystem generation, along with the
>> platform file (/etc/rpm/platform) to specify to the system what is allowed.
>>
>> RPM4 (which it sounds like you are using) does not have an easily adjustable
>> table of package names.  To install Yocto Project packages, you will need to
>> patch it to define the additional names.
> 
> Shouldn't RPM4 to be removed from OE-Core in this case?
> 
> 

oe-core preferred version in RPM5.  The RPM4 version that was recently added
should have this support.  So if the users have enabled the -oe-core- version of
RPM4 and are getting these failures then bugs should be filed.

I was referring to the community version of RPM 4.  I've seen people trying to
build packages w/ OE, and then install them on their Red Hat or other ARM
targets and it didn't work in the manner described.

--Mark