[yocto] A question about PACKAGE_ARCH renaming

[Hatle, Mark]

There is/was a conversion that changed - to _ in the package arch.  And yes this needs to be fixed ASAP.



On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:23 AM, "Xu, Dongxiao" <dongxiao.xu at intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 08:38 +0800, Xu, Dongxiao wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Just looked at this issue with Lianhao, and we got some clues.
> 
> It seems that we don't allow '-' exists in architecture label within
> RPM. Here for the beagleboard case, we use the parameter as:
> 
> rpm ... --target "armv7a-vfp-neon-poky-linux"
> 
> I think the RPM internal strips all the contents after the first '-' and
> use "armv7a" as the architecture label.
> 
> Similar is the multilib case, we can see from the code that, we use
> 'lib64_qemux86' instead of 'lib64-qemux86' as the architecture label.
> 
> If our thoughts are right, I think we need a fix for that before 1.2
> release?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dongxiao
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
>