Sender: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:35:42 -0500 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Gerald,
I am confused I get i386.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[root@linux03 base]# pwd
/export/linux/scientific/41/i386/SL/base
[root@linux03 base]# rpm -qp --queryformat "%{name}\t%{arch}\n" comps.rpm
comps i386
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you meant 41 since that is what you had in your email.
-Connie Sieh
On Tue, 9
Aug 2005, Connie Sieh wrote:
> Gerald,
>
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Gerald Teschl wrote:
>
> > By looking for grub errors I noticed some anaconda errors indicating that
> > comps.rpm has the wrong arch. In fact:
> >
> > # rpm -qp --qf "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}.rpm\n" comps.rpm
> > comps-41-0.20050727.x86_64.rpm
>
> Thats what happens when you build both x86_64 and i386 on the same system.
> I have since added checks to my build scripts.
>
> >
> > Shouldn't it be "noarch"?
>
> It should be i386. Not that anything in there is either i386 or x86_64
> but that is they way it comes from the upstream vendor.
>
> >
> > Gerald
> >
>
> Thanks for telling me about this. Now have to decide what to do about it
> as comps.rpm is not really that exciting.
>
> -Connie Sieh
>
|
|
|