Changelog 3/5/2009 New in Version 4.76.24-3

Eli Wapniarski eli at
Tue May 5 08:41:39 IST 2009

One more query.

One thing I don't understand, is the use of the BuildArch: parameter in the spec file.

>From my understanding... rpm will automatically figure out the platform that a package is being built for. I get similar output for serveral packages when building on my server. One of things that you will notice is that there is a line that reads 

Requires: rtld(GNU_HASH)

Processing files: perl-IO-1.2301-4-noarch
Provides: perl(IO) = 1.23 perl(IO::Dir) = 1.06 perl(IO::File) = 1.14 perl(IO::Handle) = 1.27 perl(IO::Pipe) = 1.13 perl(IO::Pipe::End) perl(IO::Poll) = 0.07 perl(IO::Seekable) = 1.10 perl(IO::Select) = 1.17 perl(IO::Socket) = 1.30 perl(IO::Socket::INET) = 1.31 perl(IO::Socket::UNIX) = 1.23
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
Requires: rtld(GNU_HASH)
error: Arch dependent binaries in noarch package

RPM build errors:
    Arch dependent binaries in noarch package

Please correct me where appropriate. I am only trying to gain a better understanding as to what's involved in the packaging and rebuilding.

So... from what I'm reading the error being generated is correct in that libc on 64bit platform can either be the x86_64 library or the i386 library (if the i386 support files are included). Be that as it may, on my x86_64 bit platform I only want to compile and rebuild 64bit libraries (perl modules included). From my understanding Mailscanner itself is platform agnostic in that it is a script and will run properly if the environment variables are set correctly.

So I guess in the end I'm asking why not remove the

BuildArch: noarch

from the spec file? If a user needs to compile for both an 64bit platform 32bit platform, ppc platform etc. that user would have to rebuild everything multiple times anyway.

Thank you for any better insight you can provide me.


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list