Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>
> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote the following on 2/13/2012 9:11 PM:
>> why do you think there's a problem? if you have an x86_64 system, you
>> are expected to use x86_64 perl, and that's what you have in the os
>> and updates dir for that arch, with the newer version in updates. Same
>> if you have an i386 system. Apparently centos extras provides the i386
>> package for people who want that on an x86_64 system, although the
>> version provided is the older one. ...
>
>> The only possible "bug" is that extras could carry the latest i386
>> package.
>
> I have dozens of x86_64 systems. On none of them did I manually install
> the i386 perl package. However, they all seem to have it installed.
>
> It seems that in many cases CentOS installs both an i386 and an x86_64
> package when only the base package is requested, so I have thought
> nothing of it. install.log shows that the x86_64bit package was the only
> one initially installed, yum indicates that the i386 package was
> installed later (looks like during a yum update, possibly a dependency).
>
> Is this a past mistake in the repo that is only rearing its head when
> there is a mismatch between the x86_64 version in the update repo and
> the i386 version in the extra repo? Should there even exist a version in
> the extra repo? If so, it seems it should certainly be updated.
yes it should be udpated.
I was just pointing out that the i386 version you have installed must
have come from extras, since your x86_64 system cannot see the i386
versions available in the base+updates i386 repos that you showed in
your original post. It seemed you were wondering why these versions were
not being installed.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
