Tim Verhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> Tim, >> >> Maybe you have i386 excluded from your repo file (I do as well). I think >> this is a yum issue, and it is meeting the requirement with the wrong >> package because it can. This issue is caused because the i386 devel >> packages are in the tree ... are they supposed to be? > > These are both fresh installs . I've double check the yum configs, > both do not exclude i386 packages. > >> But I don't think we can fix it except to ask redhat to do it, if >> apr-devel.i386 is in the upstream repo that is. >> >> OK ... I just checked in RHN and apr-devel-1.2.7-11.i386 is in the x86_64. > > Yep, upstream has i386 packages of apr and apr-util in their x86_64 tree. OK ... this is what we have figured out. You can not do this: yum install httpd-devel instead you have to do: yum install httpd-devel.x86_64 If you do the first (without ,x86_64), then i386 package is installed along with the x86_64 one and it pulls in all the other i386 packages to meet the requires ... if you do the second (with .x86_64) it works OK and does not install the i386 version at all. This behavior is different than earlier versions of yum, but I do not see any way to revert the behavior. I would think the goal should be to not do anything with other arches (i386 on x86_64 install, for example) unless specifically asked for. So, the answer is in an x86_64 install you need to add .x86_64 to your install commands. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20080630/2b7aff1c/attachment-0007.sig>