seth vidal wrote : > > OK, I understand now. But why was the exactarch=1 from my yum.conf > > ignored in this case? I don't mind that much the "user seems to think > > he's more clever than I am, let him do it" way of thinking, but for the > > arch, unless it's explicitly given (i.e. kernel.i586), then yum > > probably shouldn't think about changing it, not on the packages I'd > > list as "exactarchpkgs" (and that would be kernels and glibc at the > > very least). > > exactarch doesn't come into play on an install. Only on an update. > > Think about it in the case of a biarch system > > yum install foo.x86_64 - when you have foo.i686 already installed. > > it'll be fixed so it doesn't do stupid things either way. Makes sense, but isn't incompatible with what I said : If the arch isn't explicitly given, then exactarch could (should?) be considered. Typically, if you "yum install" an installonlypkg for which exactarch is true and for which an arch (to override) isn't given on the command line, then yum should say that the latest version is already installed even if there is a more recent package available which is of a different arch, shouldn't it? I hope this is what you mean by fixing it either way. Thanks for the quick answers, it's the first time I've been using 2.1.x to upgrade a whole system on a fast (P4) computer, and it does feel much faster than 2.0.x, unlike on my test PII 400 :-) Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 2.91 (FC3 Test 2) - Linux kernel 2.6.8-1.521.dell Load : 1.18 1.18 1.46
