On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Christopher Hawker <cwhawker1 at gmail.com>wrote: > I could not see any issues with it. As you probably know i386 packages will > work on an x86_64 install, and there are some packages written for i386 that > you can't get for x86_64. You could disable it, but my system runs perfect > with it. > > Yes I do know that i386 will run fine on x86_64. The intentions is to only install and run what I really need. I'm already only installing the base and @core packages during a kickstart, so I might as well try and keep it all clean from the get-go, but noticed that some packages do creep in that are not needed seeing there is an x86_64 equivalent. =) The packages that are only available via i386 are the ones I'll have to keep indeed. So the approach I took in excluding those packages would immediately break on a yum update where their dependencies also need upgrading. I came across this moving from 5.6->5.7. If there are any best practices approach someone has or some tips and tricks. I'd much appreciate the advice. Given security concerns all around, the slimmer my installs are the less I need to worry about some i386 binary that I don't need or nor run. I treat my services the same. If you don't need it, don't run it. =) -- > If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me on +61 478 > 241 896. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:52 AM, James Nguyen <james at callfire.com> wrote: > >> Can anybody give me a reason why this would be a bad idea. So the premise >> for this question is that I setup an exclude=*.i368,*.i686 in my yum.conf. >> While doing a yum update I come across missing package dependencies for >> instance mkinitrd for the i386 package. I noticed there is already one for >> x86_64. I realized during the kickstart install that some of these *.i386 >> got installed before I could enable the exclude in the yum.conf. >> >> > So the questions I pose is... why are some of these *.i386 packages getting >> installed on a 64bit distro? is there any harm is removing them all? >> >> I guess I could spin up a virtual and try, but wanted to see what the >> census already knows about this matter as well. >> >> Thanks! >> -- >> >> james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | >> 1.949.625.4263 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- james h nguyen | lead systems architect | www.callfire.com | 1.949.625.4263 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110914/a6485058/attachment-0005.html>