On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 20:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le jeudi 10 août 2006 à 14:56 -0400, seth vidal a écrit : > > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Thursday 10 August 2006 14:48, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > No, I don't like the behavior of installing both arches by default. > > > > > > I don't personally either, but I have the capacity to fix that for my system. > > > I'm just repeating the reasoning that was given to me the last time I bitched > > > about it. > > > > So everyone hates it? anyone in favor? > > We hate it :) > okay - then here are a couple of more situations I want to make sure are understood: yum remove foo* it should remove all packages starting with foo of EVERY arch or just of the primary arch in the biarch set? yum update foo* ditto of above? What should it default to act on b/c if: yum install foo* only installs the primary arch - not the secondary one - then we're creating some expectation of it for the others. consistency is a good thing, I think. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
