On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Phil Schaffner wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:17 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Phil Schaffner wrote: > > > ... snip ... > > > > > > The weirdness with the [dag_i386] stuff is to be able to find i386 > > > packages on my x86_64 arch. On a 32-bit machine the 1st entries are > > > sufficient. > > > > My x86_64 repository used to be a merge of i386 and x86_64. Sadly Yum > > cannot handle this. (ie. it installs both archs) See Yum bugzilla for the > > report. > > > > After a bunch of mails from confused Yum users I decided to keep them > > seperated. > > Thanks for the enlightenment on the reasoning. Only noticed the problem > when trying to install packages that are i386-only on x86_64. It would > be nice if the i386-only packages showed up in the x86_64 repo; however, > that sounds likely to be an extra manual load on you, unless some bright > person can suggest a way to automate the process. Not only that, it also needs to pull in all dependencies and be smart enough to know when to upgrade to x86_64 and when to keep both. Seems something Yum should be able to do, much like pinning and the protect-base functionality. Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]