/etc/rpm/platform for 64bits?

[Andre Costa]

Hi all,

my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:

ia32e-redhat-linux

I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should contain:

x86_64-redhat-linux

So, should I change it?

TIA

Andre

[Jeff Gustafson]

On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 23:33 -0200, André Costa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
>
> ia32e-redhat-linux
>
> I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should contain:
>
> x86_64-redhat-linux
>
> So, should I change it?

Yup... worked for me!
> TIA
>
> Andre

[Rex Dieter]

André Costa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
>
> ia32e-redhat-linux
>
> I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should
> contain:
>
> x86_64-redhat-linux
>
> So, should I change it?

Or simply remove /etc/rpm/platform

-- Rex

[Andre Costa]

On Nov 8, 2007 12:06 AM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> André Costa wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> > Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
> >
> > ia32e-redhat-linux
> >
> > I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should
> > contain:
> >
> > x86_64-redhat-linux
> >
> > So, should I change it?
>
> Or simply remove /etc/rpm/platform
>
> -- Rex

Thks for the replies.

So, is this a bug? Should I file a bug report? What's the purpose of
the /etc/rpm/platform anyway?

Regards,

Andre

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 08:17 -0200, André Costa wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007 12:06 AM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> > André Costa wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> > > Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
> > >
> > > ia32e-redhat-linux
> > >
> > > I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should
> > > contain:
> > >
> > > x86_64-redhat-linux
> > >
> > > So, should I change it?
> >
> > Or simply remove /etc/rpm/platform
> >
> > -- Rex
>
> Thks for the replies.
>
> So, is this a bug? Should I file a bug report?

I am not sure.

According to rpm's sources, the ia32e is a member of the x86_64 family.
So, this setting could be intentional. However, I don't know what and
why it has been set to this value on your system.
> What's the purpose of
> the /etc/rpm/platform anyway?

It's internally used by rpm to override a machine's "platform".

E.g. setting it to "i586-redhat-linux" causes rpm to ignore all
"*.i686.rpm"s.

Ralf

[John Summerfield]

André Costa wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2007 12:06 AM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> > André Costa wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> > > Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
> > >
> > > ia32e-redhat-linux

I looked at that, and thought, "Intel 32-bit architecture, EMT technology."
> > > I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should
> > > contain:
> > >
> > > x86_64-redhat-linux
> > >
> > > So, should I change it?
> >
> > Or simply remove /etc/rpm/platform
> >
> > -- Rex
>
> Thks for the replies.
>
> So, is this a bug? Should I file a bug report? What's the purpose of
> the /etc/rpm/platform anyway?

I presume it determines the default/preferred architecture for 
installation and/or building. If it's treated significantly different 
from AMD-64/x86_64, that's a bug.

[Mike A. Harris]

André Costa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> my system is an Intel Core 2 Duo, and I installed x86_64 version of
> Fedora 7 from scratch, but my /etc/rpm/platform has:
>
> ia32e-redhat-linux
>
> I've read in a lot of places on the net suggestions that it should contain:
>
> x86_64-redhat-linux
>
> So, should I change it?

"ia32e" was the code name Intel was using for their version of AMD64
before they finally settled on the name "EM64T".  Since they already 
used IA64 for Itanium, they couldn't call their 64bit AMD64 clone
IA64, and I don't think they wanted to really emphasize their AMD64
clone at the expense of IA64 sales.  IMHO, the "ia32e" name was just a 
marketing ploy intended to dumb down the whole idea of a 64bit extension 
to ia32, which the eventually decided to change.  That's just personal 
conjecture though.

Not sure why that's present in the platform file though either.  I would 
think it would be "em64t" if using anything Intel specific.

[John Summerfield]

Mike A. Harris wrote:
>
> Not sure why that's present in the platform file though either.  I would 
> think it would be "em64t" if using anything Intel specific.

That's sensible. but then so is amd-64.