Hi,
Just so you know, I updated the tidy that will be in SL 46 with the one Urs
provided, I just changed it to sl4 instead of slp4.
It was the closest to what was already in SL4 so the features are the same, and
solves the arch problem.
The tidy in SL5 is the newer one that I got from CentOS.
Troy
Urs Beyerle wrote:
Hi,
I once rebuilt tidy for the PSI SL4 repository.
The rpms should be "arch clean". Maybe they are useful for somebody.
http://linux.web.psi.ch/dist/scientific/4/psi/current/tidy-2005.9.21-2.slp4.src.rpm
http://linux.web.psi.ch/dist/scientific/4/psi/current/tidy-2005.9.21-2.slp4.i386.rpm
http://linux.web.psi.ch/dist/scientific/4/psi/current/tidy-devel-2005.9.21-2.slp4.i386.rpm
http://linux.web.psi.ch/dist/scientific/4/psi/current/tidy-2005.9.21-2.slp4.x86_64.rpm
http://linux.web.psi.ch/dist/scientific/4/psi/current/tidy-devel-2005.9.21-2.slp4.x86_64.rpm
Urs
Troy Dawson wrote:
Vrijaldenhoven, Serge wrote:
Hi,
during generation of OS group templates for quattor, we found package
tidy to give some error.
Features collected in /tmp/rpmProvides.out.28995
Building RPM list with their requirements. May take a while (15-30
minutes)...
WARNING : No valid arch found for tidy (x86_64) dependency libc.so.6
Available archs for libc.so.6 : i686
WARNING : No valid arch found for tidy (x86_64) dependency
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
Available archs for libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) : i686
WARNING : No valid arch found for tidy (x86_64) dependency
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
Available archs for libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) : i686
RPM requirements collected in /tmp/rpmRequires.out.28995
What seems to be the problem is that the tidy package is a 32 bit
application, while having x86_64 in it's name:
tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Although it looks 64bit:
rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH}\n" -p
./tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm
warning: ./tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key
ID 82fd17b2
tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64
We think it's 32 bit.
1. It requires 32bit libraries
$rpm -q --requires -p ./tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm
warning: ./tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key
ID 82fd17b2
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
(64bit applications list '(64bit)' behind the dependencies)
$rpm -q --requires -p zip-2.3-27.x86_64.rpm
warning: zip-2.3-27.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
a7048f8d
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
2. After installing, it looks like a 32bit application
$rpm -ivh tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm
warning: tidy-2005.9.1-1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key
ID 82fd17b2
Preparing...
########################################### [100%]
1:tidy
########################################### [100%]
$file /usr/bin/tidy
/usr/bin/tidy: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.0.30, dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
not stripped
$ldd /usr/bin/tidy
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00325000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x0030b000)
Greetings,
Serge
Interesting ... and it looks like it run's, because for some reason,
something else it pulling in the 32 bit glibc. Actually, as I try to
pull the 32 bit glibc out ... it's pulling out a *huge* list of
things, but they are all marked i386 or i686.
I'll look into it, but it's going to be quite low on my priority list,
if someone else wants to see about recompiling it to that it really is
x86_64. See if there was some setting I missed.
Troy
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________
