On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 14:22 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:17 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> > >
> > > The weirdness with the [dag_i386] stuff is to be able to find i386
> > > packages on my x86_64 arch. On a 32-bit machine the 1st entries are
> > > sufficient.
> >
> > My x86_64 repository used to be a merge of i386 and x86_64. Sadly Yum
> > cannot handle this. (ie. it installs both archs) See Yum bugzilla for the
> > report.
> >
> > After a bunch of mails from confused Yum users I decided to keep them
> > seperated.
>
> Dag,
>
> Thanks for the enlightenment on the reasoning. Only noticed the problem
> when trying to install packages that are i386-only on x86_64. It would
> be nice if the i386-only packages showed up in the x86_64 repo; however,
> that sounds likely to be an extra manual load on you, unless some bright
> person can suggest a way to automate the process.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
To allow both the i386 and the x86_64 package to be installed on the
same machine, some things need to be different. All the docs and setup
files normally reside in the same shared location, so installing both
can be a problem. (can't install xxx.x86_64 because file xxx is already
installed and owned by package xxx.i386)
Because of the way RH supports multilib arches, they have spec files
that allow certain, but not all, i386 and x86_64 to be installed
simultaneously. Other times, you will have to pick either the i386 OR
the x86_64 package.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050716/f1cd50a7/attachment.bin
