This document hasn't been maintained in decades, and is not in any way official.
Alex On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 10:14, Sergey Zhmylev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure, RPM naming convention from rpm.org: > http://ftp.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-file-format.html > As you can see, there are nothing about "core2_64" architecture. > > -- > With best wishes, > Sergei Zhmylev > Engineering consultant > OS development department > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2023-01-13 at 09:34 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > «Внимание! Данное письмо от внешнего адресата!» > > > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 at 09:25, Sergey Zhmylev <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Exactly! Even more: when I build for "genericx86_64", I get mix of > > > packages with architecture one of: "x86_64", "genericx86_64", > > > "core2_64", and "noarch". Our audit team highlited this as this is > > > not > > > compliant with common RPM naming convention. > > > > Can you please link to (or describe with references) the common > > naming > > convention? > > > > Alex > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#175817): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/175817 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96233100/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
