David Cantrell (dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >In looking, this function is called from /usr/bin/anaconda, and > >yuminstall.py:doBackendSetup(), both to write the config for the > >yum/rpm instance that anaconda uses. That implies that anaconda currently > >sets it to prefer 32-bit binaries if a binary exists for both arches in > >the transaction. Given that we set multilib_policy=best, and we compose > >with ppc64 as primary, this shouldn't be an issue in any default > >installation. However, if someone manually adds <foo>.ppc to their > >package set (via kickstart, or whatever) this would change the behavior > >they see. > > > >Do we still want to change this in released RHEL? While it's a behavior > >change, I think the current behavior (where yum preferred 64-bit packages, > >but you got 32-bit binaries if you installed both) is a bit nonsensical. > > I agree that the current behavior does not make sense, but since RHEL-6 is > already going, I'm going to say we hold the line and not make this change > unless it comes in as a bug. We've seen too many instances where things we > think should be cleaned up end up surprising way too many users. We should > change master as clumens indicated, but keep the rest of rhel6-branch > functionality as-is and only make the change necessary for this bug report. 'the change necessary for this bug report'... the change for the bug report would be for anaconda to not write the file on the installed system. If we only changed it there, then the behavior during install and post-install would be different. I'm not sure that's better. Bill _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
