From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:19:38 +0300 From: Alexey Tourbin To: ALT Linux Team development discussions Message-ID: <20091223191938.GZ9864@altlinux.org> Mail-Followup-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions References: <20091221154028.9681B2D7602E@ssh.git.orion.altlinux.org> <20091221233616.GN9864@altlinux.org> <20091222080556.GP9864@altlinux.org> <20091222181849.GB23811@wo.int.altlinux.org> <20091222185423.GS9864@altlinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AW8RmF6KeXgMzg/h" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [devel] forced noarch X-BeenThere: devel@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Team development discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:19:38 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --AW8RmF6KeXgMzg/h Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 04:17:09PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > 2009/12/22 Alexey Tourbin : > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 09:18:49PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:05:56AM +0300, Alexey Tourbin wrote: > >> [...] > >> > http://git.altlinux.org/people/at/packages/girar-builder.git > >> > 642af655 =A0gb-task-check-noarch-i: force noarch by extensional equa= lity > >> [...] > >> > 3) Cannot make arch package with identical files and deps. > >> > E.g. cannot make arch perl module which should be noarch. > >> > > >> > [at@people 17774]$ PATH=3D~/git.alt/girar-builder:$PATH gb-task-chec= k-noarch-i 5 > >> > error (#5): perl-Net-IP-1.25-alt2.i586.rpm should be noarch > >> > >> This restriction looks too hard. =A0How many packages in current > >> repository would fail to pass the check? > > > > Why do you think it's too hard? =A0Basically, it says "if the list > > of files is the same, and ***md5 sums*** are identical, and deps > > are identical, the package must be noarch then". >=20 > I don't think that it's a good idea. >=20 > There are only two architectures in Sisyphus - i586 and x86_64, > which are similar. It's not enough to be sure, that package is > really noarch. Can you specify a package (from the list) which is identical on i586 and x86_64, but should not be made noarch because it assumes e.g. little-endian architecture? > I think we should postpone the idea untill Sisyphus will have at > least one non-x86 arch and one big-endian arch. i586 and x86_64 are "different enough" except for endianness. Look how they are different: 1) file paths are different (lib - lib64); 2) native binaries are different (elf32 - elf64); 3) sizeof(void*) =3D=3D sizeof(long) is different. How they are common: 1) sizeof(int) is the same (32 bit), 2) both are little endian. Which means that certain host data structures (and thus certain binary file formats) might have the same representation. --AW8RmF6KeXgMzg/h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksybUoACgkQfBKgtDjnu0beNwCdGqqETyF8F/TScAUeR4UoLgVS PlQAnjxNkoUvg6Osf/pv9zh9ZcX8pdKp =7a9u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AW8RmF6KeXgMzg/h--