Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf.
So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all?
I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well.
Thanks!
I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect with it.
-- If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 241 896.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen james@callfire.com wrote:
Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf.
So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all?
I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well.
Thanks!
james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Hawker cwhawker1@gmail.comwrote:
I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect with it.
Yes I do know that i386 will run fine on x86_64. The intentions is to only
install and run what I really need. I'm already only installing the base and @core packages during a kickstart, so I might as well try and keep it all clean from the get-go, but noticed that some packages do creep in that are not needed seeing there is an x86_64 equivalent. =)
The packages that are only available via i386 are the ones I'll have to keep indeed. So the approach I took in excluding those packages would immediately break on a yum update where their dependencies also need upgrading. I came across this moving from 5.6->5.7.
If there are any best practices approach someone has or some tips and tricks. I'd much appreciate the advice. Given security concerns all around, the slimmer my installs are the less I need to worry about some i386 binary that I don't need or nor run. I treat my services the same. If you don't need it, don't run it. =)
--
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 241 896.
Regards, Christopher Hawker
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen james@callfire.com wrote:
Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf.
So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting
installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all?
I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the census already knows about this matter as well.
Thanks!
james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
From: James Nguyen james@callfire.com
So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.
What about using multilib_policy=best instead?
JD
I haven't seen this option before. Let me do some googling and see if it fits into the solution I'm looking for.
Thanks =)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: James Nguyen james@callfire.com
So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686
in my yum.conf.
While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for
instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.
What about using multilib_policy=best instead?
JD
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 15 September 2011 19:58, James Nguyen james@callfire.com wrote
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: James Nguyen james@callfire.com
So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.
On our 2 colo servers we have one with i386/i686 only and on the other we are x86_64 only. Everything works (typical LAMP / Sendmail etc install) I just followed the intstructions from the centos wiki
http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-357346ff0bf7c14b0849c3bcce39677aaca5...
i used to regret the lack of a 64 bit native flash plugin which was the only reason to not move to a pure 64bit enviroment for the desktop but now that you-tube can serve html5 i no longer care
mike
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:01 +0100, Michael Simpson wrote:
On 15 September 2011 19:58, James Nguyen james@callfire.com wrote
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:02 AM, John Doe jdmls@yahoo.com wrote:
From: James Nguyen james@callfire.com
So the premise for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for instance mkinitrd for the i386 package.
On our 2 colo servers we have one with i386/i686 only and on the other we are x86_64 only. Everything works (typical LAMP / Sendmail etc install) I just followed the intstructions from the centos wiki
http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#head-357346ff0bf7c14b0849c3bcce39677aaca5...
i used to regret the lack of a 64 bit native flash plugin which was the only reason to not move to a pure 64bit enviroment for the desktop but now that you-tube can serve html5 i no longer care
mike _______________________________________________
There is a 64 bit flashplayer now that seems to work fine on 5.x and 6.x. This is an old link so not sure if it's still good.
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_square.html
Sorry for the OT post.
Cheers, B.J.
CentOS Linux release 6.0 (Final)
There is a 64 bit flashplayer now that seems to work fine on 5.x and 6.x. This is an old link so not sure if it's still good.
Sorry for continuing the OT but i don't want some poor sod finding the above in google The "10square" plugin old and deprecated (and broken) Apparently there will be a native 64bit player in the 11 series but i stopped caring a while ago. I find myself agreeing with Jobs about flash and adobe's inability to code a 64bit plugin suggests much unmaintainable brokenness in the codebase html5 ftw
mike
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael Simpson mikie.simpson@gmail.com wrote:
There is a 64 bit flashplayer now that seems to work fine on 5.x and 6.x. This is an old link so not sure if it's still good.
Sorry for continuing the OT but i don't want some poor sod finding the above in google The "10square" plugin old and deprecated (and broken) Apparently there will be a native 64bit player in the 11 series but i stopped caring a while ago. I find myself agreeing with Jobs about flash and adobe's inability to code a 64bit plugin suggests much unmaintainable brokenness in the codebase html5 ftw
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11/
On 15/09/11 10:02, John Doe wrote:
What about using multilib_policy=best instead?
JD
This is what I do as well and it's worked well on many different machines now. i386/i686 packages are not automatically pulled in anymore, it automatically selects the right arch (x86_64).
-
B.J. McClure -
Christopher Hawker -
James Nguyen -
John Doe -
Khusro Jaleel -
Michael Simpson -
Stephen Cox