On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 11:05 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Neal Gompa: > > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:28 AM Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > We do not want to change the RPM architecture, so that users still can > > > install third-party software. This means that we need to change the > > > dist tag to avoid confusion. > > > > > > > Changing the RPM architecture does not necessarily mean that you > > wouldn't remain compatible with baseline x86_64. For example, > > OpenMandriva's build of the distribution optimized for first > > generation AMD Ryzen systems uses the "znver1" RPM architecture, but > > the "znver1" architecture is deliberately considered compatible with > > x86_64, so packages that are "x86_64" are still installable. There are > > numerous examples of this for 32-bit x86, and there's no reason we > > couldn't do this for 64-bit x86. > > But the value of %_arch still changes, right?
I don't think that needs to be true. If I'm reading the rpm source right (always questionable) it looks like %_arch is set from $CANONARCH in the installplatform script, which treats ia32e and amd64 such that $CANONARCH is still x86_64. Granted this does mean you'd need to patch the normal (not the one in your buildroot) rpm package to know about this architecture too, which is maybe not ideal, or else require that installing packages from this buildroot requires using that buildroot's rpm. - ajax _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
