https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=377516 Summary: RPM "DISTRIBUTION" field should not contain "arch" Product: openSUSE 10.3 Version: Final Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: Minor Priority: P5 - None Component: Other AssignedTo: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: suse@tlinx.org QAContact: qa@suse.de Found By: Customer Specifically, I found the problem under the "noarch" directory -- but, logically, it _could_ apply to all the subdirectories. I looked at the DISTRIBUTION field under packages in the "noarch" dir, and it said "OpenSUSE 10.3 (i586)". Yet it is the same "noarch" dir for X86_64, i586 and PPC. First thought that occurred -- if it is "noarch", why is there an "arch" in the Dist field. Second thought -- '(noarch)' wouldn't be appropriate, since, really, I doubt SuSE claims to distribute a "noarch" OpenSuSE 10.3 distribution. Third -- are distributions really named by their architecture or are they named by just the vendor & version? I.e. if the "(arch) sub-field in "Distribution" should be empty for noarch -- why not all archs? Isn't the Distribution name "really", "OpenSuSE 10.3" and the "ARCH" field specifies what architecture it is for? Wouldn't the version of "Gvim" in "OpenSuSE 10.3" really be the same whether it was for ARCH i586 or x86_64? IMO, the "DISTRIBUTION" field should be identical for all packages in the one "OpenSuse 10.3" distribution, with the "ARCH" field specifying what architecture the given RPM is "for". The same situation applies to the "src" directory: *most* of the source files are "i586", yet for some source RPMs, it says PPC or X86_64. Does that mean the PPC or X86_64 source packages are only for PPC or X86_64? Wouldn't that imply that i586 would only be for i586? That can't be the case or some ARCH's would be missing their source. For most sources, when there is a non-i586 (PPC or x86_64) "Distro" it is a 2nd copy of the same Package-Version with a Release differing by 1 or 2. A few packages have different "Releases" for each architecture, though usually there is only 1-extra arch. I thought the "higher" release number was usually a bug or security fix for the lower 'release'. It's certainly not clear from the filenames which ones are limited or intended only for a specific architecture, but shouldn't the sources be common RPM's for all archs? Having different sources for different architectures doesn't inspire great confidence that two RPM's on different architectures are "the same" (on a logical program level, not including architectures specific bugs). It's a little bit confusing if not outright "dysfunctional"....? If I see a new release of source on an FTP server in the sources dir, how would I know what "architecture" it is for? (I.e. -- ideal it should be 1 "updated" release, for all).... Not a "show stopper", but it would "appear" to be "technically" "distasteful" :-), at first glance... Linda -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.