On 2/4/06, Claude Jones <cjones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday 04 February 2006 13:01, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:50:08PM -0500, cjones@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Friday 03 February 2006 23:14, Claude Jones wrote: > > > > On Fri February 3 2006 9:19 pm, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > x86-64 ? If so, yes. > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > Doesn't ring a bell. I'll post them tomorrow when I'm back in the > > > > office. Thanks. > > > > > > Here's what I've got > > > > > > rpm -qa | grep glibc > > > glibc-devel-2.3.90-30 > > > glibc-devel-2.3.90-34 > > > glibc-2.3.90-34 > > > glibc-2.3.90-30 > > > glibc-common-2.3.90-34 > > > > I'll ask again. Is this an x86-64 ? If so, having two glibc's is normal. > > > > Dave > > Sorry, I blocked on your question. No, it's definitely not an x86-64 machine. I'm seeing a similar thing on my x86_64 box: # rpm -qa | grep glibc | sort glibc-2.3.90-30.i686 glibc-2.3.90-30.x86_64 glibc-2.3.90-34.i686 glibc-2.3.90-34.x86_64 glibc-common-2.3.90-30.x86_64 glibc-common-2.3.90-34.x86_64 glibc-devel-2.3.90-30.i386 glibc-devel-2.3.90-30.x86_64 glibc-devel-2.3.90-34.i386 glibc-devel-2.3.90-34.x86_64 glibc-headers-2.3.90-30.x86_64 glibc-headers-2.3.90-34.x86_64 glibc-kernheaders-3.0-4.x86_64 I have both versions for both architectures, heh. The update that pulled in the 2.3.90-34 versions went rather rough. I had to constantly go kill off gcj-dbtool because otherwise yum would just sit there. I guess there is no telling what might be broken as a result of that... Jonathan -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list