Re: package manager for RHEL?

On Oct 25, 2007, at 3:36 PM, seth vidal wrote:

>
> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 12:31 -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
>>> Now, on the X86_64 system, one will usually find both the i386 and
>>> x86_64 libs installed. This is not a flaw or mistake, it is a  
>>> multilib
>>> feature developed.  This way, programs that have 64 bit
>>> implementations can be used, but 32 bit programs that need the
>>> audit-libs functionality can find it.  The dynamic linker for
>>> libraries looks in /usr/lib64 first, then /usr/lib.
>>
>> yes, but the way this appears in rpm in Red Hat's implementation
>> is horribly nonintuitive. You have to go grokking for special
>> arguments to give rpm to figure out which package is which,
>> should you have a reason to operate on only one of them.
>> Most other distros have chosen to tag the package names in a
>> way that they can be identified visually; this is not "better"
>> in a technical sense but sure is easier to use.
>>
>
> Which is a good reason to list your installed pkgs using any of the
> package managers that operate above rpm.
>
> yum list installed
> will output like this, for example:
> yum.noarch                    3.2.7-1                installed
> yum-metadata-parser.i386      1.1.2-1.fc8            installed
>
> So there's no doubt about which arch you have installed.
>

cat << GO_SYSIN_DD >> /etc/rpm/macros
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}.%%{arch}       %%{version}-%%{release}  
installed
GO_SYSIN_DD

$ rpm -q yum
yum.noarch	3.2.7-1.fc8	installed


Then there's no confusion about what "yum list installed" is actually
doing, or why yum chose to install multilib packages in the first place.

73 de Jeff