On Fri, 2023-01-13 at 09:14 +0000, Sergey Zhmylev 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.
We build target binaries to different levels of tuning, there are packages which run everywhere (noarch), there are binaries which are optimised to a specific tune and there is machine specific output. People can inject other levels of packages as well. Giving a hint of the kind of thing a given rpm contains seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for us to be doing. If you come from the rpm world, yes it is slightly unusual but as the document above says, it works fine. We're not "in-compliant", we're just adapting rpm usage to the environment it is being used in. So no, I don't think we should be taking a patch which would just confuse things for what seems to be a cosmetic reason. Can you perhaps convince your audit team this is a sensible usage given how the project builds and uses the rpms? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#175818): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/175818 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
