Thank you for the reply. That does appear to be the issue. With all x86_64 packages installed and only the glibc.i686 with a differing architecture the rpm command will correctly upgrade the multilib packages. To answer your question about yum check, it passed with no output on the original setup. Everything functioned correctly on the system except for the rpm upgrade. [root@64-bit rpm]# yum check Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags check all Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Jason Henderson <jasonhen@xxxxxxxxxx>; General discussion about the RPM package manager <rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 12:31:09 PM Subject: Re: rpm update on multilib system ignores duplicate package name with different arch on command line On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 10:19 -0800, Jason Henderson wrote: > I have a Linux distro (based on CentOS) which contains both i686 and > x86_64 versions of some rpm packages. In the example below I want to > upgrade the installed glibc.i686, glibc.x86_64 and glibc-common.i686 > packages at the same time. > > > As shown the rpm command ignores the glibc.x86_64 package when > glibc.i686 proceeds it in the list of packages to upgrade. The end > result being that the glibc.x86_64 package is removed from the system. [...] > > Example: > > [root@64-bit]# rpm -qa | grep glibc > glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.4.x86_64 > glibc-2.12-1.107.el6_4.4.i686 > glibc-common-2.12-1.107.el6_4.4.i686 This is not correct for an x86_64 arched machine. Eg. From: http://mirror.stanford.edu/yum/pub/centos/6.4/os/x86_64/Packages/ glibc-2.12-1.107.el6.i686.rpm 23-Feb-2013 09:50 4.3M glibc-2.12-1.107.el6.x86_64.rpm 23-Feb-2013 09:40 3.8M glibc-common-2.12-1.107.el6.x86_64.rpm 23-Feb-2013 09:41 14M ...I'd be curious about what "yum check" says, and how the system got into the state it is in. Likely someone did something using --nodeps previously and, as always with --nodeps, made the problem worse. If you want/need this weird combo. of primary i686 and secondary x86_64, then you are mostly on your own ... neither yum nor rpm are tested that way by the developers (or any distro.). Fixing it (so it's x86_64 primary and i686 secondary, as normal) might not be trivial, I guess I'd "distro-sync full" a lot. _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
