Yes you could build an initrd on a node other than the golden. Even an initrd
of a different arch.
So, I agree with your assessment that it should be noarch.
Cheers,
-Brian
Brian Elliott Finley
Mobile: 630.631.6621
-----Original Message-----
From: Erich Focht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:07:18
To:sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:Brian Elliott Finley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bernard Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sisuite-devel] Re: boot-standard requires
On Friday 02 December 2005 17:43, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
> Benard and I are contemplating the packaging of SI 3.5+. We're trying
> to make a decision about how the initrd_template files should be
> packaged. Currently they're part of $boot_package.
>
> Here are some options:
>
> 1) Create a new package, systemimager-initrd_template, and have
> systemimager-client depend on it. only the arch for the client in
> question would be necessary, and this would end up being an arch
> dependent package:
>
> systemimager-initrd_template-$version.i386.rpm (for example)
> systemimager-initrd_template-$version.ia64.rpm (for example)
Could I build an initrd on another node than the client? For example on the
master? In that case I might prefer to have the package as noarch, just in
case the master is of different architecture than the client.
systemimager-initrd_template-x86_64-$version.noarch.rpm
makes sense, too, one needs to put the %Requires: lines inside %ifarch
blocks. With multiarch setups one would have to install the additional
packages manually.
But if you _allways_ want to build initrd on the client, an arch dependent rpm
is fine, of course.
Regards,
Erich
N¬HYÞµéX¬²'²Þu¼¦[§Ü¨º
Þ¦Øk¢è! W¬~é®åzk¶C£ [EMAIL PROTECTED],º·â a{
å,àHòÔ4¨m¶ÿiÛ(±ÙÜ¢oÚv'
