On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 02:02:37PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>And what is being produced? An *.i386.rpm or an *.arm.rpm?
> >
> >...
> >Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
> >/projects/octotux/packages/rpm/BUILD/mISDNuser-arm-root
> >Wrote: /projects/octotux/packages/rpm/SRPMS/mISDNuser-1.2.0-163.src.rpm
> >Wrote: /projects/octotux/packages/rpm/RPMS/arm/mISDNuser-1.2.0-163.arm.rpm
>
> .arm.rpm?
>
> If we have i386, i686 etc, shouldn't it rather be .armv5.rpm, .armv6.rpm
> etc, or actually your current -march flag like in my current
> -march=armv5te?
Our repo uses -march=armv5te, and the packages are *.armv5tel.rpm
('l' for little endian.)
Using the mach name is the default, and seemed like the most
straightforward option (it's also what most people have been doing
for a while with rpm.)
While this works fine for different ARM arch levels, the only case
where this breaks down is for VFP and iWMMXt and such, since they are
optional and not a property of the arch level, so another solution
needs to be found for those.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
