On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, 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.
>
> 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.
Not only that, it also needs to pull in all dependencies and be smart
enough to know when to upgrade to x86_64 and when to keep both.
Seems something Yum should be able to do, much like pinning and the
protect-base functionality.
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
