On Monday 22 January 2007 17:13, Michal Jaegermann wrote: > You seem to be missing the point. Jonathan did not ask to > "install gutentprint". Look at this output: > > gutenprint i386 5.0.0-4.fc7 extras-development > 2.7 M replacing gimp-print-utils.x86_64 4.2.7-24.fc7 > > and the same gimp-print-utils.x86_64 is "replaced" but x86_64 version > of gutenprint too. > > In the past I was complaining about that behaviour and also did not > get very far. See > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199600 > I was told that this is a packaging bug and yum does what it is > supposed to do. I am still not convinced. It is quite clear > that while doing replacements yum has a full information about > architectures involved. If you indeed had installed > gimp-print-utils.i386 too then gutenprint.i386 would show up > in a transaction anyway. You're referencing a different issue all together. In the gutenprint case, the yum output may have been muddied a bit, it is entirely possible that the user had both x86_64 and i386 versions of gimp-print. The replacement got attributed to the .x86_64 both times, which may not have been correct. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgp4tMK1aWkzD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list