Alpha Core 3

[Oliver Falk]

Sergey Tikhonov schrieb:
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 17:25 -0500, Jay Estabrook wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 09:27:31PM +0100, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>     
>>> Check out /etc/rpm/platform; We need to fix this for the different 
>>> sub-archs I believe... And then check /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/*.
>>>
>>> Arg. Even uname -m reports the wrong thing on my DS10. :-( Havn't 
>>> checked the AS1000 yet.
>>>       
>> If we want it to behave like i*86, which does somerthing like:
>>
>> 	uname -mpi
>> 	i686 i686 i386	
>>
>> should Alpha report on (667MHz) DS10:
>>
>> 	uname -mpi
>> 	alphaev67 alphaev67 alpha
>>
>>
>> Here's from the manpage:
>>
>>        -m, --machine
>>               print the machine hardware name
>>
>>        -p, --processor
>>               print the processor type
>>
>>        -i, --hardware-platform
>>               print the hardware platform
>>
>> I assume we'd keep the generic "alpha" name for hardware platform (-i),
>> but should the sub-architecture show up in either or both of the others?
>>
>> BTW, I'm VERY interested in this area, as one can get a BIG benefit
>> from running packages built for a specific Alpha sub-architecture on
>> appropriate machines (eg alphaev56 for PWS/LX/SX, alphaev6 for DS10).
>>
>> Right now, "rpm" will make you say "--ignorearch" to get ANY sub-arch
>> package installed; that's not right.
>>
>> It'd be nice, not only if "rpm" didn't force you to say that, but also
>> if "rpm" OR "yum" would consider it a valid potential "update" to just
>> install the same version package built for a (more appropriate)
>> sub-arch on top of an installed generic one.
>>
>> I've rebuilt a lot of SRPMS targeted for alphaev67, and I'd like to
>> make it easy to get a more optimal system after installing from a
>> generic set.
>>
>> Anyone have any additional thoughts on this?
>>     
> I was able uname to output for uname -mpi:
> alpha alphaev56 alpha
>
> uname -m show information returned by uname glibc call (which in turns
> calls kernel.
Kernel-Bug :-P

> I remember tracing that a long time ago).
> The -p and -i is handled by "uname" and have some altering code for
> other arches. I'll install modified version of uname and see how other
> programs would like the new output. :)
>   
Let us know!

Best,
 Oliver