i486 base architecture
Jeff Johnson
n3npq at nc.rr.com
Wed Dec 1 17:07:02 UTC 2004
Peter Jones wrote:
>>>>yeah just make the i686 rpms be i386 ones with a Require: cpu(cmov)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Ignoring the severe technical problems that it would create (It'd
>>>break _everything_ and be way too much work to implement), how about
>>>.ia32.rpm for everything that is .i386 now and use i?86.rpm for stuff
>>>that requires a specific cpu?
>>>
>>>
>>No, Requires: cpu(cmov) breaks nothing, it's just another strcmp to rpm.
>>Your expectations are what is confusing you. Yes, there would be a lot
>>of confusion for a short period of time, but as Arjan has pointed out,
>>there are only a handful of packages that need to carry the dependency.
>>
>>
>
>RPM isn't the only thing that touches files though. Lots of stuff
>doesn't expect that it'll find 2 i386 packages, so it'll dump them to
>the same filename. I know it sounds silly, but having the arch
>difference means it's easy to generate non-colliding filenames.
>
>That's not to say we shouldn't do the "Requires: cpu(cmov)" as _well_,
>since it could obviously be helpful in many situations.
>
>
>
OK, to summarize:
a) There's a whole lot of pain and not much gain messing with
package file names (and file paths and scripts and ... )
b) The dependency
Requires: cpu(cmov)
(or equivalent token) might (*will* imho) be useful identifying
packages that actually use, say, cmov.
(Note: there's more than cmov that needs marking, generalizing
the cpu(...) name space is quite straightforward.)
c) Users want a clear call on what package file name to install, as
some *.i386.rpm will not run on arch i386, very confusing.
d) linuxthreads needs to die! die! die! (but that's just me ;-)
Name your poison (if any) please.
73 de Jeff
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list