On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 13:49 -0400, Nat Gross wrote: > On 4/26/06, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: > > Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > > > If it does want the 32-bit version it shouldn't hurt anything > > > to install it with: > > > yum install xorg-x11-libs.i386 > > > I needed that for VMware server recently and posted here about > > > a conflict with fontconfig from the 64-bit version. I think > > > that's a bug but someone responded with a workaround: > > > > > > > rpm -e --justdb --nodeps fontconfig > > > > which is very very wrong, and if you really care about this, dont do it. > > find the solution to the problem, rather than just using a hammer to > > break your system even more. > Now, that I did do that, how do I reverse it? Karanbir and I are solving this issue right now ... we should have a fix later that will work for CentOS users (I hope). Just for the record, the upstream provider knows of the issue, which is that the file that becomes /usr/share/man/man5/fonts-conf.5.gz is not the same between the i386 build and the x86_64 build ... and they have this (private) bugzilla concerning that same problem with s390 and s390x: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97079 Whatever they did do, they did not build their RPMS for i386 and x86_64 from the published SRPM. As I said, hopefully we will have a patch that works later today for this issue. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060426/21ee65ae/attachment-0005.sig>