seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 16:11 -0400, Sean Dilda wrote: > >>seth vidal wrote: >> >> >>>I've also never figured out what was so heinous about having both i386 >>>and x86_64 of a package installed by default. what's the bad thing that >>>happens? >> >>Because sometimes the .i386 and .x86_64 version of the package have file >>conflicts that rpm won't handle for you. In this case you get screwed >>if you try to do the install. >> >>(Case in point, MPICH auto-generates .h files during build time, and >>these files contain architecture specific #define's) > > > That seems like a packaging bug. If the two packages are intended to > coexist on the system then they should not have conflicting files. if > they're not allowed to coexist then they need a Conflicts: for each > other. I never said the two were intended to coexist on the same system, yum did. Are you suggesting that mpich-devel.i386 conflict with mpich-devel.x86_64, and vice versa. Does rpm even allow that?
