RPM package generation architecture

RPM package generation architecture

[Yevhen Kyriukha]

Hi

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?

-- 
Regards,
Yevhen

Re: RPM package generation architecture

[Mark Hatle]

On 1/18/15 4:55 PM, Yevhen Kyriukha wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 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.

--Mark

Re: RPM package generation architecture

[Otavio Salvador]

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?


-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: RPM package generation architecture

[Mark Hatle]

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