Namely:
* hivex * hivex-devel * librdmac * librdmac-devel * sanlock-libs * sanlock-devel
and maybe others.
Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).
-Michael
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Lampe lampe@gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
Namely:
- hivex
- hivex-devel
- librdmac
- librdmac-devel
- sanlock-libs
- sanlock-devel
and maybe others.
Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).
FYI:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=5836
Akemi
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Michael Lampe lampe@gcsc.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
Namely:
- hivex
- hivex-devel
- librdmac
- librdmac-devel
- sanlock-libs
- sanlock-devel
See http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2012-0996.html for more info about sanlock . Looks like the do not have sanlock i386 in x86_64 tree anymore.
and maybe others.
Is this on purpose (I don't know if upstream has removed or updated the 32-bit rpms, but the old ones are still in C6.3/x86_64), or is it just the usual sloppyness (I've been told here on previous occasions the biarch is a pain in the ass to maintain, nobody cares anyway, it's not 'plain', and no sensible man should be using it).
FYI:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=5836
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-Connie Sieh
-
Akemi Yagi -
Connie Sieh -
Michael Lampe