RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-users>

Re: package foo-1.1.1.x86_64.rpm is intended for a x86_64 architecture

From: Marc MERLIN <marc_rpm@merlins.org>
Date: Wed 12 May 2010 - 20:55:02 CEST
Message-ID: <20100512185502.GN10241@merlins.org>
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:52:17AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> muny20:/tmp# rpm -i foo-1.1.1.x86_64.rpm 
> package foo-1.1.1 is intended for a x86_64 architecture
> muny20:/tmp# uname -m
> x86_64
> muny20:/tmp# rpm --version
> RPM version 4.4.1
> On another machine with an older rpm binary:
> eou15:/tmp# rpm -i foo-1.1.1.x86_64.rpm 
> eou15:/tmp# uname -m
> x86_64
> eou15:/tmp# rpm --version
> RPM version 4.0.2
> I did compile the new rpm binary with
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man --without-selinux  --build i386-gnu-linux
> I did pick i386-gnu-linux because I have a 32bit userland and I did not 
> want a 64bit rpm binary. I'm not sure if this baked in my arch in the rpm
> binary though, I hope not.
> The old rpm:
> eou15:/tmp# grep -r x86-64 /usr/lib/rpm
> eou15:/tmp#
> The new rpm:
> muny20:/tmp#  grep -r x86-64 /usr/lib/rpm
> /usr/lib/rpm/magic:>>18 leshort         62              AMD x86-64,
> Binary file /usr/lib/rpm/magic.mgc matches
> muny20:/tmp# 
> Any idea how I can tell the new rpm to rely on my arch as in uname -m as
> opposed to whatever else it is doing?

Oh, I forgot, 
eou15:/tmp# rpm -qRp foo-1.1.1.x86_64.rpm 
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

The binary does require a 64libc, but I have one.

"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
                                      .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/  
Received on Wed May 12 20:55:20 2010
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.