Blake Hudson wrote: > > > Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote the following on 2/13/2012 9:11 PM: >> why do you think there's a problem? if you have an x86_64 system, you >> are expected to use x86_64 perl, and that's what you have in the os >> and updates dir for that arch, with the newer version in updates. Same >> if you have an i386 system. Apparently centos extras provides the i386 >> package for people who want that on an x86_64 system, although the >> version provided is the older one. ... > >> The only possible "bug" is that extras could carry the latest i386 >> package. > > I have dozens of x86_64 systems. On none of them did I manually install > the i386 perl package. However, they all seem to have it installed. > > It seems that in many cases CentOS installs both an i386 and an x86_64 > package when only the base package is requested, so I have thought > nothing of it. install.log shows that the x86_64bit package was the only > one initially installed, yum indicates that the i386 package was > installed later (looks like during a yum update, possibly a dependency). > > Is this a past mistake in the repo that is only rearing its head when > there is a mismatch between the x86_64 version in the update repo and > the i386 version in the extra repo? Should there even exist a version in > the extra repo? If so, it seems it should certainly be updated. yes it should be udpated. I was just pointing out that the i386 version you have installed must have come from extras, since your x86_64 system cannot see the i386 versions available in the base+updates i386 repos that you showed in your original post. It seemed you were wondering why these versions were not being installed.