> One more thing I want to mention is that if you want to align the > architectures so that you can install RPMs from Fedora, RHEL or any > other RPM-based binary distro, don't. It's not going to work at all, > or will cause you lots of pain and suffering. We use rpm for its > packaging and dependency resolution functions, but no one ever > promised any kind of 'compatibility' with Red Hat products. >
Indeed, I'm not going to align those names for this. Moreover, for this particular case rpm(1) supports several parameters to disable arch/os/etc checks. > So no, I don't think we should be taking a patch which would just > confuse things for what seems to be a cosmetic reason. > The patch proposed is not about a cosmetic change, it's about precise control over what packaging system produces. Given the recipes can override variables with a priority over any confs/classes, it looks like there is no proper way to overload the values (in particular PACKAGE_ARCH) used during packaging process. Some variables could be used to adjust TUNE flags and their values should stay intact prior to packaging. Anyways, your word will be the last but I am still sure that "more control" is better than "no conrol". Kind wishes, Sergei
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#175823): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/175823 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96233100/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
