On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 13:48 -0700, Rich Rauenzahn wrote: > [Not sure if this is a yum question, or an rpm question.. but since > yum is driven by rpm metadata, I'll start here?] > > We've noticed sometimes if there is both a 32bit and a 64bit version > of a package in a repository yum will only install one of them. But > sometimes it will prompt to install both. This should be controlled by the multilib_policy configuration (if it's all, then "yum install foo" will install both, if "best" it'll just install foo.x86_64). You can also explicitly list the arches you want. If this isn't what you mean, you need to give more information about what is happening. > Allowing only one is appropriate when the binary goes into /usr/bin, > and both packages can coexist just fine if they are libraries that go > into .../lib or .../lib64 There are currently no heuristics like this, one problem with trying this would be that yum would need to download the filelists metadata. > We're building a package (i386 and x86_64) that installs a binary into > /usr/bin, yet yum seems to think both can be installed, similar to > libraries. We don't want this... > > Is this controlled through some rpm metadata specified in the spec > file? I've had no success with google or rpm documentation. The usual thing to do is just not put the .i?86 version in the .x86_64 repo. ... in theory you could add a conflict on "the opposite of _isa" but you'd have to do that manually, and it won't stop yum trying to install both arches (if multilib_policy=all) ... it'll just make yum refuse to depsolve that. If you need both to be available, and have multilib_policy=all you could do something like the SuSE/zypp multilib. support where you have foo.x86_64 and foo-32bit.i?86 (not forgetting to add conflicts). _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
