From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.wrs.com (mail5.windriver.com [192.103.53.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92796606BF for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail5.wrs.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u3LFeUsi032470 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:40:30 -0700 Received: from soho-mhatle-m.local (172.25.36.226) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:40:29 -0700 To: References: <1461244566.31320.119.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems Message-ID: <5718F46D.8010309@windriver.com> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:40:29 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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 15:40:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 4/21/16 9:25 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 08:50 -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. >>> >>> just to be clear, if i can dredge up the recipe for rpm_4, i'm >>> assuming i'd want to specify that i want the "package-management" >>> image feature, as well as stating: >>> >>> PREFERRED_VERSION_rpm = "4.%" >>> PREFERRED_VERSION_rpm-native = "4.%" >>> >>> correct? >> >> Just to confuse things further, you could write an OE recipe which >> took the v4 rpm files from the other system and then simply >> repackaged them into v5 rpms files. Nothing says you *must* compile >> from source, the input could be the v4 rpms. > > great, just what i needed ... yet *another* strategy. in any event, > can i confirm that if i have the recipe for RPM4, i can use > PREFERRED_VERSION to use it for the OE build and, later, to install > RPM4-format rpms built elsewhere? > > also, *if* i build an image based on RPM4, is it feasible (or even > possible) to upgrade the whole thing to RPM5 later? i'm not sure i > even want to think about the grief possibly involved in that. Due to potential endian and header differences, I don't know. It was certainly possible in the past to do this (and easy). But at this point it may no longer work. I think this is a question that probably should go to the rpm5-users mailing list, as they may have more information. --Mark > thanks muchly. > > rday >