Michael Schwendt wrote: >> I guess it only concerns noarch packages, so why not "noarch" ? > > Because it concerns i386 "-common" packages, too, which are built as a > sub-package. True. +1 for COMMON then. Aurélien -- http://gauret.free.fr ~~~~ Jabber : gauret@xxxxxxxxxxxxx "Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
