On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 16:21 -0400, Sean Dilda wrote: > 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. > if they can't be installed on the same system AND they don't have a specific conflict why are they in the same repository? > Are you suggesting that mpich-devel.i386 conflict with > mpich-devel.x86_64, and vice versa. Does rpm even allow that? yes. -sv
