Re: [repo-coord] Re: nVidia rpms ...
Panu Matilainen <[email protected]> Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:22:17 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.freshrpms.user,gmane.linux.redhat.rpm.atrpms.repo-coordination |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 12:29 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > > So perhaps we should carefully decide which i386 packages to add to > > x86_64 repos? It would be interesting to know how Red Hat decided > > which packages to offer as i386 compatibility packages. Probably all > > openoffice depends on, but perhaps there are more. > > I refuse. The behaviour of Yum is clearly broken, people do not expect to > have all binary archs installed just because they are available and the > arch is unspecified. People are not supposed to know in what archs a > package comes. The problem is with the multilib monster and RH packaging, not yum. If the you have libfoo.i386 and libfoo.x86_64 which don't share any files then installing separately is not a problem. However several such packages in FC and RHEL do have common files, in which case installing them separately fails with file conflicts (and you need to use --force to override, sometimes with "interesting" results) but if they're installed simultaneously rpmlib just "swallows" the conflict. Multilib isn't called sick without a reason... - Panu -