Re: [Maxlinux-devel] Installation and architecture based rpms.

[Kelledin <kel...@sk...>]

On Thursday 22 August 2002 08:16 am, Enrico Kern wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have only a few noarch rpms in LATEST , hmm why this AMD,
> i686, i486 packages. This is bad for Installation, but good
> for later us.

Ah well...sorry 'bout that.  I should have described the layout a=20
bit better.

i486 packages are what we should use; LSB-IA32 requires that all=20
architecture-specific packages should be i486.  i686 and athlon=20
rpms were really created primarily for my own personal benefit;=20
you shouldn't worry about them.

"noarch" rpms--well, they're non-architecture-specific (scripts,=20
font packs, and the like, with no ELF files).  Declaring them as=20
"i486" seems like a poor practice to me, as they can actually=20
install and run on any architecture.

"noarch" and "i486" RPMs from the LATEST directory will not=20
conflict.  You can effectively install everything in=20
LATEST/RPMS/i486 and LATEST/RPMS/noarch (with the exception of=20
sendmail* or postfix*) without anything conflicting.

> - cleaned up and working (please test it) NO-ARCH Packages (or
> i use the i586).

As for how well-tested they are...I'm currently running all the=20
packages in LATEST on various systems.  A few of them (j2sdk and=20
jre in particular) have known problems, but they're not=20
show-stoppers as far as getting an install script going.  The=20
rest are as well-tested as they can be at the moment.

--=20
Kelledin
"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does=20
it still cost four figures to fix?"