Hi, On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 07:20:31PM +0200, Bogdan Costescu wrote: > Then the bad news: the part that is not doable is being able to > specify an architecture whose $basearch is different from the install > machine's $basearch (like sparc vs. i386). By fooling with > archwork.getArch() I was able to make yum choose f.e. x86_64 packages > on an i686, but rpm refused to install these packages. So unless some > kind of "cross-rpm" (analogy to cross-compilation) comes up, this is > not doable. The main issue here is that rpm-cross compatibility would imply full cross-compatibility on the binary runtime level, as rpm %post etc. scripts may call arbitrary binary executables on the target host (i.e. scrollkeeper, /sbin/install-info, ldconfig). > The only exception would probably be making an i686/athlon > installroot on a x86_64, in which case the patch would still be > useful... In general you can always chroot-install to backward compatible archs as defined with arch_compat in /usr/lib/rpm/rpmrc, e.g. for "sparc" you can use (only): arch_compat: sun4c: sparc arch_compat: sun4d: sparc arch_compat: sun4m: sparc arch_compat: sun4u: sparc64 arch_compat: sparc64: sparcv9 arch_compat: sparcv9: sparc But not the other way around, e.g. compatibility is not symmetric. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20040827/93b79f56/attachment.bin
