Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they both carried these packages also.
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
Thanks.
Tony
Tony Molloy wrote:
Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they both carried these packages also.
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
no it's probably not repo pollution. try to google for multilib
for example: http://blog.nexcess.net/2012/07/19/64-bit-centos-installing-32-bit-packages/
On Friday 30 November 2012 14:21:12 Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Tony Molloy wrote:
Hi,
I've just been checking my local copy of the CentOS repos. I found 200+ i386/i686 packages in both the updates/5/RPMS and updates/6/Packages directories.
I checked with my rsync site ( ftp.heanet.ie ) and the equivalent UK site ( ftp.mirrorservice.org ) and they both carried these packages also.
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
no it's probably not repo pollution. try to google for multilib
for example: http://blog.nexcess.net/2012/07/19/64-bit-centos-installing-32-bit- packages/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks Nicolas, John.
These repos are for a bunch of 64 servers, the only one of which requires 32bit packages is the one that runs Oracle ;-)
I might as well leave them there, disk space is cheap.
Thanks again.
Tony
On 11/30/2012 03:40 PM, Tony Molloy wrote:
I might as well leave them there, disk space is cheap.
In case disk space is a problem, install hardlinkpy and run it on your mirror directories.
I do that after each rsync.
Mogens
From: Tony Molloy tony.molloy@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
From: Tony Molloy tony.molloy@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download directories, last I checked.
On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote:
From: Tony Molloy tony.molloy@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download directories, last I checked.
It has been being done this way since x86_64 was first released by Red Hat ... See Fedora Core 1's x86_64 updates directory and search for i386. http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/core/updates/1/x8...
They still do it that way in their latest release: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/17/x86_64/
We have been doing it that way since our first release as well: http://vault.centos.org/3.1/updates/x86_64/RPMS/
It is just how multilib is done in Red Hat type distributions.
On 11/30/2012 09:13 AM, Mike Burger wrote:
From: Tony Molloy tony.molloy@ul.ie
Is this a case a repo pollution, it can't be necessary to have i386 packages in the x86_64 updates. Just checking before I delete these packages.
You need them to run i386 apps on a x86_64.
JD
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download directories, last I checked.
It has been being done this way since x86_64 was first released by Red Hat ... See Fedora Core 1's x86_64 updates directory and search for i386. http://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/core/updates/1/x8...
They still do it that way in their latest release: http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/17/x86_64/
We have been doing it that way since our first release as well: http://vault.centos.org/3.1/updates/x86_64/RPMS/
It is just how multilib is done in Red Hat type distributions.
My apologies...I stand corrected.
Mike Burger wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:13:10 -0500 (EST):
True, but i386/i686 packages are usually still only located in the 32bit repo directories...they're not usually intermingled in the actual download directories, last I checked.
How many dozens of years did you "last check"? ;-) repo's are structured by architecture of the system, not by bitness of rpm.
Kai
-
John Doe -
Johnny Hughes -
Kai Schaetzl -
Mike Burger -
Mogens Kjaer -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg -
Tony Molloy