Hi Ralf
Thanks, putting a
%define _rpmfilename %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
in the spec file worked.
And your naming scheme etc. is totally understandable. I always think of
OpenPKG source packages as the class definition and the binary packages
as the resultant objects.
Cheers
COnrad
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:50, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003, Conrad Steenberg wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to build a package consisting only of
> > architecture-independent files, but need some info on package naming:
> >
> > When built with a BuildArch: noarch, the package gets named e.g.
> > mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch-linux2.4-oo.rpm
> >
> > Is there a way to let the package be named
> > mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch.rpm or even mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch-oo.rpm ?
> >
> > The package clearly has nothing to do with Linux or being built in
> > /opt/openpkg.
>
> There is a technical and an organisational answer:
>
> 1. Technically:
>
> RPM originally defines
>
> %_rpmfilename %%{ARCH}/%%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
>
> which means that under "BuildArch: noarch" you get binary RPMs
> named like mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch.rpm. Because OpenPKG is a
> cross-platform solution (not just cross-architecture!) we redefined
> the _rpmfilename to be:
>
> %_rpmfilename %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}-%%{OS}-%{id}.rpm
>
> and this way the binary RPMs are named like
> mypackage-1.2.3-1.ix86-linux2.4-oo.rpm. And setting the BuildArch
> obviously results in mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch-linux2.4-oo.rpm. So, in
> short: in OpenPKG you cannot get mypackage-1.2.3-1.noarch.rpm at all.
> But this doesn't matter from our point, because...
>
> 2. Organisationally:
>
> OpenPKG by design focuses on source RPMs and the building and
> installing directly from them. Binary RPMs are just an intermediate
> and temporary result in this approach. From our perspective, they
> exist just temporarily on the target machine or on our FTP server
> because of bootstrapping and for emergency situations only. Hence we
> do not distinguish between architecture independent and dependent
> binary packages. Binary RPMs make already too much trouble, so the
> OpenPKG project stays out of this business and tries not to make it
> more complex than it has to be for us....
>
> Because this issue should not confuse others in the future, I've added
> two FAQs points about this now ;-)
>
> http://www.openpkg.org/faq.html#source-focus
> http://www.openpkg.org/faq.html#noarch
>
> Ralf S. Engelschall
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.engelschall.com
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
> Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Conrad Steenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
______________________________________________________________________
The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org
Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
