> I did not know about this. Wow. Thanks for the info. Actually, in > retrospect, this explains to some degree why apt for rpm and apt for deb > produce differing outputs. I've noticed that apt for rpm keeps its info > in a less clean manner than the original apt does. Well the trick is apt on suse x86_64 works ok for their implementation of multilib - b/c suse tags the 32bit and 64bit packages differently. > Actually, I mostly like being able to grab and build source rpms. It's > something that up2date can (supposedly) do, but yum does not have the > functionality yet. I guess I could just write a patch and send it into > the guys at Duke, but it feels weird to try to add functionality to one > software package when another exists that does everything I want. NB: I'm the 'guys at Duke' :) > They've stated that no one seems to be interested in source functionality: > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-June/004526.html I don't have a problem with it - it's just not something immediately on my radar. However, if you'd like to work on something like that - I can point you in the right direction for it. It's actually easier to do now than it was a few months ago. > Woohoo!!! Anything I can do to help? Actually, now that I think about > it, my earlier post indicates my CentOS box isn't fully functional right > now, but it's got one good drive in the mirror set working. Need some > packages built? Could you make my day job a little less demanding? That'd make things happen, for me, faster. :) -sv