Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 212357
rpm does not honor the arch tag
Last modified: 2012-06-20 12:16:10 EDT
On IBM Power rpm -i <somepackage>.rpm installs the package even if it is build
a different architecture.
To reproduce the problem just run
rpm -i <somepackage>.i386.rpm
Yes, on multilib systems (i.e. with %_transacftion_color 3, all RH distros since RHL9),
rpm does not check arch compatibility.
This is correct if you want to install compatible archs, for instance i386 on
x86_64, however, in my opinion, rpm should still check for incompatible archs.
I don't disagree.
All depends on what "compatible" means. There are aliasing issues with the
string identifiers assigned to various ppc arches (there may be as many as 6 too many
arches for ppc*).
It is also unclear what "compatible" means when installing on, say,
a nfs-server with a different arch (and --relocate), or on a multilib system
where "compatible" is determined by the sysadmin choice, not by rpm.
"compatible", still in my opinion, means that binaries are suitable to run on it.
It it understood that the operating system is the same.
So, dealing with linux on Power, compatible archs means ppc and ppc64 (and
noarch, obviously). On 32 bit intel (i686), all the i*86 archs are compatibles
and so on.
This reflects the hardware evolution from systems with 32(31) bits internal bus
to systems with 64 bits internal bus.
At the end this is summarized by the rpm "compatible archs" macro and it's not a
sysadmin choice. Sysadmins willing to install software that can not run on the
target system/OS can still play with the --ignore* rpm switches.
rpm-4.4.8 includes the ability to specify regex patters that are applied
against cpu-vendor-os-gnu platform strings as a mechanism for platform affinity.
Thank you for submitting this issue for consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The release for which you requested us to review is now End of Life.
Please See https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
If you would like Red Hat to re-consider your feature request for an active release, please re-open the request via appropriate support channels and provide additional supporting details about the importance of this issue.