[yocto] A question about PACKAGE_ARCH renaming

[Xu, Dongxiao]

On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 10:35 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 4/16/12 8:01 PM, Xu, Dongxiao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am testing beagleboard with RPM, and there is a question I am confused
> > with that PACKAGE_ARCH is renamed for certain packages. For example the
> > "acl" package, whose expected PACKAGE_ARCH is "armv7a-vfp-neon", however
> > in RPM file, the arch is renamed to "armv7a", see
> > "acl-2.2.51-r2.armv7a.rpm". However IPK package still shows
> > "acl_2.2.51-r2_armv7a-vfp-neon.ipk".
> >
> > Could anybody give hint on this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dongxiao
> >
> 
> I've not seen that happen before.  Can you checked if an 
> acl-...armv7a-vfp-neon.rpm was generated and RPM is simply not using it, or was 
> it never generated?

No, there is no acl-xxx.armv7a-vfp-neon.rpm, only acl-xxx.armv7a.rpm
created.

Actually I think this issue does exist since our 1.1 release, you can
have a look at the package repo:

http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.1/rpm/armv7a-vfp-neon/

The directory is named as "armv7a-vfp-neon", however all the packages
under the directory are of "armv7a" architecture.

While see the ipk part:
http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.1/ipk/armv7a-vfp-neon/
The directory name and rpm architecture name are the same.

Thanks,
Dongxiao

> 
> As another user mentioned, it is possible for a package to say it wants a 
> specific arch type, but if it did -- it should be consistent between packaging 
> systems.
> 
> --Mark