SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

August 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:35:42 -0500
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (47 lines)
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
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2