From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091223191938.GZ9864@altlinux.org> 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> <20091223191938.GZ9864@altlinux.org> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:33:37 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: ALT Linux Team development discussions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 20:33:55 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: 2009/12/23 Alexey Tourbin : > 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 =C2=A0gb-task-check-noarch-i: force noarch by extensional = equality >> >> [...] >> >> > 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-che= ck-noarch-i 5 >> >> > error (#5): perl-Net-IP-1.25-alt2.i586.rpm should be noarch >> >> >> >> This restriction looks too hard. =C2=A0How many packages in current >> >> repository would fail to pass the check? >> > >> > Why do you think it's too hard? =C2=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". >> >> I don't think that it's a good idea. >> >> 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? At least all packages which contain GNU message catalog files(*.mo): $ for p in `cat ~/tmp/force-noarch`; do rpm -qpl $p | grep -q '^/usr/share/locale/.*\.mo' && echo $p ; done bison-runtime-2.4.1-alt2.i586.rpm celestia-common-1.6.0-alt4.i586.rpm comix-4.0.4-alt1.1.i586.rpm gftp-common-2.0.18stable-alt5.i586.rpm gkrellm-ss-common-2.6-alt1.i586.rpm gnome-utils-common-2.28.1-alt2.i586.rpm gramps-3.1.2-alt1.1.i586.rpm gwenview-i18n-1.4.2-alt1.i586.rpm installer-ltsp-0.1-alt2.5.7.i586.rpm installer-ltsp-school-0.4-alt5.3.i586.rpm installer-server-0.2-alt2.i586.rpm installer-server-lite-0.2-alt1.i586.rpm libgtk-engines-default-common-2.18.4-alt1.i586.rpm remount_rw-0.2-alt1.i586.rpm sugar-pippy-activity-25-alt3.1.i586.rpm virt-manager-0.8.2-alt2.i586.rpm Who knows what else. >> 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.