> > not an option given problems in the past with circular dependencies. So > > if you are going to force this down our throats, please at least give us > > some idea of the logic behind this besides, it is broken and I want it fixed. > > The kernel-source package became noarch. This had a LOT of advantages, > including cleanups, saves a TON of diskspace, it IS noarch, it saves a ton of > build time too. It allows easier adding of other architectures as well. Sorry but I don't follow. Why disk space or build time? Doesn't the package have the same contents whether it is labeled i386 or noarch? Obviously there must be advantages, otherwise you would not do it, but it seems to me the change (i386->noarch) is not critical. The change in architecture could have been delayed once problems were found with whatever (yum/up2date/etc). Fix the real problem in yum/up2date/etc, then change the architecture. No name change needed. Almost everybody happy :-) -- Fernando
