seth vidal wrote : > > How about something like "exactarch=glibc kernel kernel-smp" being > > recognized? There are actually few packages for which the wrong arch > > can lead to disaster, and there are many more for which it's no big > > deal(like gzip, or 3rd party packages going from i386 to i586 because > > of enabled mmx stuff etc.). Just a thought. > > That's probably not a bad idea but it has two problems: > > 1. it makes the updates processing mind numbingly difficult to follow In practise, it's more difficult than just "do as if we had exactarch=1 for the packages listed, do as if we had exactarch=0 for all others?" when going through the dependency resolving? > 2. it's a change that can't be made in the current stable branch b/c it > will change too many people's config files in midstream. Why would this be so? If 0/1 still works (ok... there will be a non-working corner case, if someone wants exactarch for only a single package called "0" or "1" ;-)), and if the implicit default stays the same, then all existing installations shouldn't see any difference unless the config is changed, no? Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) - Linux kernel 2.6.6-1.427 Load : 0.13 0.27 0.24
